User talk:Xeno/Archive 24

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.

Should IP's be blocked indefinitely like in this case? --Inka⁸⁸⁸ 00:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In the case of BLP violations I believe that persistent vandalism is a cause for an indef-block. Though I may be wrong. —

3:34pm

• 05:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it's a dynamic IP, so an expiry should probably be set. And you're right, IPs are not typically blocked indefinitely (

WP:IPBLENGTH). –xeno^talk

12:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I read that a while back that's why I was asking. That IP has blocked for close to three months; maybe unblock it? --Inka⁸⁸⁸ 22:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

To err on the side of caution (as this was an egregious BLP violation), I simply set it to expire about four months from the original block. –xeno^talk 22:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was a definite releationship of the User:A3RO (indefed) and the I.P. addy that I (mistakenly) indefed last year. It was a problem at the time, with several calling for my head. Just curious, is all. Thanx for your work here it's appreciated! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever did happen with A3RO, he was such a good contributor :/ I shouldn't be jumping in and answering questions unless I actually know the answer. —

10:00am

• 00:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Indefed without talk page access for violating WP:OUTING multiple times. --Inka⁸⁸⁸ 02:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. –xeno^talk 13:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

@Hamster - not really sure, to be honest. –xeno^talk 13:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit [1] appears to contradict [2] Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The specific terms of the image license require it. We have to attribute it in the manner specified by the copyright owner (or not use it). –xeno^talk 19:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Should bureaucrats that have been inactive for over a year be removed from the list of bureaucrats? --Inka⁸⁸⁸ 22:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The list used to be separated by activity, but it wasn't being regularly maintained. –xeno^talk 04:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Aghzaikas. People are still citing falling rain and why does it not show on the spam filter? Incompetence. 13,000 population my arse. Do you see 13,000 people in the coordinates given?. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the SBL listing was declined at the time: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2010#Fallingrain.com. It may be a good time to request it again. –xeno^talk 16:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Who declined it? I know you spent some time removing a lot of the links which is something but this really should have been completely blacklisted long ago. I'll notify Orderinchaos.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It was declined by A. B. (talk · contribs); I believe because if we blacklist the link while there are still links out there, then it will really trip up the people who are editing those pages - but you'll have to ask him to be sure. –xeno^talk 16:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it be that much of a problem removing every link to falling rain and then blacklisting it? It shouldn't be an issue. The most seirous issue is that this source continues to be a reliability threat for place articles on wikipedia and if it isn't stopped then unaware editors like the Aghzaikas creator will continue to implant false data in good faith.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking into account A. B.'s comments at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2010#Remaining links used as references -- what's next?, perhaps the best thing to do would be to seek opinions/volunteers at the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. –xeno^talk 16:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I can't believe that such a blacklisting would need the support of hundreds of people when a number of decent editors including competent admins such as Darwinek and Orderinchaos who also know the data to be false. It really should have been delisted back in 2006.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The support is not needed to blacklist it, the support is needed to cleanse the 'ped of the uses in a deliberate and well-thought-out manner. It is unlikely that a bot could be programmed to address the very legitimate content-based concerns explained by A. B. –xeno^talk 16:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Mmm seems we have more....... Yes the difficult thing is finding the false data and removing it. But that is surely not a valid reason to justify the continued existence of it and to allow editrs such as Mar4d to create new articles sourcing data from it..♦ Dr. Blofeld

An

edit filter maybe. –xeno^talk

16:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, see User talk:A. B.#Falling rain (permanent link). I support and encourage Dr. Blofeld in any efforts he undertakes to go fix some of these articles himself. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

One other comment: just because I'm very active on the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist page doesn't mean I make final decisions. I've made it very clear my strong opinions about the process to be followed to clean up the fallingrain mess (clean up the links/get wide consensus, then blacklist). This opinion is based on previous hard experience. Having said that, other admins are free to reverse my decision and add that domain to the blacklist.

An admin that did that unilaterally would eventually find their action reversed. If you opened some sort of centralized discussion, however, you'd have sufficient community consensus to make the decision stick. I'm busy and not keen to shepherd this process, but Dr. Blofeld or any other editor (not just an admin) could get it going. A discussion confined to just the spam blacklist regulars would not carry sufficient consensus -- you'd just get a later dispute over how "the anti-spam 'link-nazis' have once again blacklisted a perfectly good site". I've seen this drama play out before. That's why you need a centralized discussion.

As I've written before, I am sympathetic to the goal of removing fallingrain as a reference for articles but sick of having my motivations and values as an editor and human impugned, so I leave it to others to lead this charge. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi xeno, if you have the time, could you take a look at this BRfA (just the last ~3 comments, about the placement of the template). I believe you gave me some settings for AWB which basically moved a templates around on the talk page. If you could put one together for {{

Hi, you have been suggested to help me with User:People-n-photo-bot. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/People-n-photo-bot# Discussion. Basically I currently add a new template before an existing one I know exists on the page. Any suggest how I can place the template after other template?--Traveler100 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Current method

Find  : {{(WPBio|WPBiography|WP Biography|WikiProject Biography|WP Biographies|Bio)

Replace with  : {{reqphoto|Scouting and Guiding people}} {{$1

This is the code I use to move stuff below Banner Shells. It's probably prone to rare errors:

regex, singleline

Find:
\{\{reqphoto(.*?)\}\}
(.*?)
}}
***BLANK LINE***

Replace:
$2
}}
{{reqphoto$1}}
***BLANK LINE***

Obviously ***BLANK LINE*** is just a blank line, but make sure you have it there and don't just end with the }}. –xeno^talk 19:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

But how to I place a new reqphoto have other templates, with or without banner shells?--Traveler100 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Try just prepending it. –xeno^talk 04:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the help, I think I have it now.--Traveler100 (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Any time. You might think about building some logic to ensure reqphoto doesn't travel lower than the first == (the rare error I mentioned). –

xeno^talk

16:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• User talk:Black Falcon#Hi : )

As Happy appears to be less than active, I thought I'd drop this your way to see what you think : )

As I asked him: Would the universe melt down (smile) if we changed it to a dozen or better, a score? : ) - jc37 17:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, to be honest. Aren't you supposed to just use

Template talk:WPBannerMeta, because that beast is something I've yet to tame. –xeno^talk

17:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at that, and especially for notifying Schvenn.

Is that notice a template, or something of your own?

I almost notified myself, and was thinking of good wording; that seems very nice and clear.

One further question, re.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It is {{

xeno^talk

19:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Another thing they can do is keep checking

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 307° 31' 45" NET

20:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how long it'll take to live that one down! heh. –xeno^talk 12:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it, yep, thanks both.  Chzz  ►  22:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I and Dr.K. (talk · contribs) agree that Inka 888 is ready for the rollback permission. I will contact several people and feel free to discuss on my talk page.--Talktome^(Intelati) 20:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 12:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This will probably seem trivial, but I've been wondering about this for awhile: is there any way that I could see a list of how many pages I've made on here? Thanks in advance. --

(driveby) This tool works well for that.

Your specific page count excluding redirects.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

See also: {{user pages created}}. –xeno^talk 12:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a fan:

'Twas only a matter of time, I suppose =] While I originally thought I coined the compound word in 2005, it's actually been around as early as 1995. –xeno^talk 12:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Orson Scott Card published Xenocide, a sequel to Ender's game in 1991. Ender, of course, commits xenocide in Ender's Game, unwittingly - but whether the term is used in the book I can't recollect. (Excuse typos -as the Darleks woudl say "my vision is impaired!) Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Yes, but I don't think he ever used the derivative word 'xenocidic' - obviously he coined the root =) –xeno^talk 18:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive509#User:Rich Farmbrough

You remarked that Deacon's 1950 policy violations of 2009 were not going to affect anything as old as 2006 - and so presumably was absolutely fine. It turns out you were right but he did vandalise edits as far back as early 2007. Rich Farmbrough, 06:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Do you think he made those edits in a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia"? –xeno^talk 12:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think he was reckless. He knew, or should have known (because he either looked or should have looked - and if he didn't look he was using a bot), that he was rolling back current edits which were not the ones offending him. I don't blame him for not thinking about the consecutive edit thing. In fact I don't blame him for any of it, it was just a big <sigh> factor at the time, and to have it brought back now, 18 months later when I am begin reported at ANI .. well you can decide for yourself what

WP:QUACK tests that passes. And I certainly wasn't going to let his observations stand uncontested. My modus operandi is generally to respond to actual current issues that affect what I am doing - I don't take any pleasure (well a little since I have allowed myself some tongue in cheek humour this time round) in the back-and-forth at ANI - although as I have said I can see how easy it is to get drawn into those realms of WP, to some extent less is more, which is one reason I rarely comment on ANI. Which brings me to my reason for dropping by... Rich Farmbrough

, 17:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

If he was being reckless, it was in a good faith attempt to improve the state of affairs (remove the unnecessary {{ibid}} tags), not to deliberately compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Just be careful about throwing around the V-word. –xeno^talk 17:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Am I wasting my time writing more there? There's still loads more to say, but if no-ones reading it, or they are reading it and don't care it's a waste of time and bandwidth. Rich Farmbrough, 17:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

I dunno. For my own part I'm growing kinda tired of the topic, to be honest. The thread is getting a bit unwieldy too. Maybe should be moved to

WP:BON or something. –xeno^talk

17:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Personally I think that this thread is no longer looking like it's gonna get us anywhere. So I would suggest closing it, with the result that Rich no longer changes the capitalisation of templates (since it appears that you agree to this, Rich? Problems with AWB can hopefully be resolved separately) and discuss other concerns (maybe only if they continue) at another venue. BON seems like a sensible place. However, I do think that you (Rich) still need to stay with-in botpol - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that sound sensible. If there's any lingering issues they can be brought up at WP:BON in a fresh topic. –xeno^talk 17:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well you are both on BAG, what I propose to do is press on with AWB and get BRFA's for anything over and above built in AWB functionality and stuff that isn't already BRFAd. It's going to be a lot of work for very little difference from what I offered: and realistically the only significant opposition was to in-line Cite foos. But <meh>. I brought it on myself, having a little more time fro WP and having finally caught up with the "rump" of undateable articles for the first time in many months I started looking at some outstanding problems, including the problems that edit filter 218 was picking up, and the problems with the 0.8 articles, and about 6 other massive areas - some bottable some not. The increased editing naturally exploded people's watchlists - I should have foreseen that. Rich Farmbrough, 21:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Sounds like a good approach. –xeno^talk 15:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if you saw this article from the New York Times. Another editor pointed out to me, and I just had to smile. Take a look (if you haven't seen it already) and let me know what you think. --McDoobAU93 17:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Great read! Thanks for the link. I'd never thought of that strategy mentioned in the last sentence - leave it to a 5-year-old! –xeno^talk 17:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I see you've had some extensive experience with

Never have I see a duck quack so loudly. –xeno^talk 14:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I recently made some enquiries about bypassing the 25000 page limit when building lists with AWB, and was recommended to use the nolimits plugin. Problem is I'm not an admin and don't have a bot account. I did some digging in the talk archives and I see you granted bot-level AWB access to another user who made a similar enquiry about a year ago. So I was wondering, would it be possible for me to get the same access, or could you at least point me in the right direction for making a more formal request? Thanks in advance. PC78 (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I could, but the only issue is I think this ability draws from the apihighlimits right given to bots and admins (I don't know if that user ever had success). So, I've marked you down as a "bot" as far as AWB is concerned, but you might actually need the

BRFA from a bot-named account - you could even just say you don't even plan to use the bot to edit or something, and just file a plain "query only" BRFA; or just file for a frequently requested bot task. –xeno^talk

12:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do, unfortunately!. —Reedy 12:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

D'oh =) –xeno^talk 12:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I should kick myself for giving this away but if you use the list comparer in AWB you can usually bypass the 25000 limit. Typically if you put in a list in the left side (List 1) and then on the right side you bring in another list (List 2) for comparison. That list (List 2) on the right will almost always allow more than 25000 as a comparison. Especially if you select Category (recursive). You can then then use that list.--

talk

) 12:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Though, that gave me the insight that the plugin should really allow people to use it if they have the "apihighlimits" right, so added that in rev 7235. Maybe worth reviving the discussion. It should be one of these flags given out fairly liberally to users who are trusted/have the need. Kumioko, FYI, the recursive one has a limit of 200k articles, and 30 for depth... —Reedy 12:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Reedy, bureaucrats

might one day

have apihighlimits too (and researchers already do =)

I'd guess that a recursive category search can broach 25000 because each category is a separate query with a 25k max. –xeno^talk 12:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess most 'crats are sysops... So it doesn't matter majorly ;) —Reedy 12:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Reedy I didnt know it had a 200K limit, never hit it yet.:-) --

talk

) 13:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

At present, yes =] –xeno^talk 13:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Kumioko's suggestion helps me: you can of course build lists larger than 25000 with a recursive search or with multiple queries, but what I need is to get past the 25000 limit for a single query, i.e. for a very large category or highly transcluded template. Where does that leave me then? Should I create a bot account for myself and file a BRFA? PC78 (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep (or apply for adminship ;>). –xeno^talk 14:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No thanks! :) Right, I've just created PC78-bot, and I'll see about that BRFA in a while. PC78 (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did you put office actions at the bottom of the list on protection policy? --Inka^{888Come yell at me!} 23:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't; someone else did, but I agree with the current order. While "Office protection" is the "highest" form of protection because it flows from the Foundation, it's quite rare, it's not really a type of protection but an added variable to semi- or full-protection. See

WT:PROT#Order of entries. –xeno^talk

19:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

So it was put at the bottom because it was not as relevant as the other forms of protection? Inka^{888Come yell at me!} 21:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's unlikely the reader is there to read about office protection, so it makes sense from a ease-of-use perspective to place it lower. –xeno^talk 22:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

68.237.215.48 looks a little like a

IP is currently blocked. –xeno^talk 22:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I get that I was saying it looks a bit like a sockpuppet to me. --Inka^{888Come yell at me!} 23:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it somehow possible to add an exception so that the "sleep" status translates to "Heymid is now sleeping" in the edit summary, instead of just "sleep"? HeyMid (contributions) 22:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but you'd need someone who knew how to write javascript. I just copied that from someone else. You could probably just copy it yourself, into your userspace (using

appropriate attribution) and then change "sleep" to "sleeping" and ensure that {{statustop}} recognizes 'sleeping'. –xeno^talk

19:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not a javascript expert, but this should just be a matter of changing the line

document.getElementById('wpSummary').value = wgUserName + " is now " + status +".";

to be

if (status == "sleep")
{ status = "sleeping"; }
document.getElementById('wpSummary').value = wgUserName + " is now " + status +".";

no? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably =] [3] Bypass your cache and try it out, Heymid. –xeno^talk 22:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Good! It worked. No need to bypass the cache in my browser. :) HeyMid (contributions) 09:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Currently, most users are reluctant to produce row headers according to the

So the proposal is to have row headers left aligned by default, when they are accessible using the code scope="row". This proposal was already adopted at fr.wikipedia, and is doing a pretty good job at encouraging users to make row headers marked with scope="row".

So could you please comment MediaWiki talk:Common.css#The main proposal to left align row headers? Edokter is the only one who is opposing it, because he believes this is a negligible change. And 4 users support it already. I'd need you to weight in favor of this proposal. And since you're an admin maybe you could make this change? Thanks. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered soliciting further opinions by posting to

WP:VPT? –xeno^talk

22:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good idea, but thanks for the advice. :-) I had the occasion to talk a little about row headers and the scope attribute to three guys with good technical knowledge, who are regulars at WP:VPT. They all though right away that the scope attribute should somehow be added automatically. For example, using CSS (which is impossible) of trough MediaWiki (which is impossible too). It defies the purpose: this attribute is supposed to be added manually precisely because it cannot be automated.

I fell like the users at WP:VPT won't understand this proposal, bring more unnecessary discussion and delay this proposal even more. However, this is only the feeling I get, so I may be wrong.

The village pump would have been a good choice if I wanted to discuss this proposal. But this is a simple and straightforward proposal that should simply be adopted. We have 6 support and 1 oppose as of now. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather someone more knowledgable about these kind of things were to take a look. I'll try to take a closer look after the long weekend. –

xeno^talk

03:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Xeno! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

Help Xeno, i have created my account [user]qctomlee[/user] on 4th october in wikibooks. Then i unify all my logins, however i can't login qctomlee in English Wikipedia. What can i do?
Here is the result
Thanks!
Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.201.246 (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Try using

xeno^talk

19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't merge, can't login in my account or can you simply delete qctomlee in en.wikipedia.org? Thanks [b]Tom[b/]

Try now. –xeno^talk 12:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno, all problems are tackled. You've helped me a lot! Tom —Preceding

talk • contribs

) 13:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. Don't forget to sign your posts with four ~tildes~. –xeno^talk 14:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This is related to my previous message. The people at

But the most important change is to add scope="col" to column headers. The discographies tables are consistent, so a bot could do it on my opinion. Since this change doesn't have any impact on the layout and such, it is consensual and not risky at all. I left a message about it at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style.

All tables in

{|class="wikitable"
!rowspan="2" width="33"| Year
!rowspan="2" width="215"| Album details
!colspan="10"| Peak chart positions
!rowspan="2" width="145"| Sales
!rowspan="2" width="125"| [[Music recording sales certification|Certifications]]<br /><small>([[List of music recording sales certifications|sales thresholds]])</small>
|-
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Billboard 200|US]]<br /><ref>1</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[ARIA Charts|AUS]]<br /><ref>3</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Austria|AUT]]<br /><ref>7</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Finland|FIN]]<br /><ref>9</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Netherlands|NLD]]<br /><ref>6</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[New Zealand|NZ]]<br /><ref>10</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Norway|NOR]]<br /><ref>4</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Sweden|SWE]]<br /><ref>8</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Switzerland|SWI]]<br /><ref>5</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[UK Albums Chart|UK]]<br /><ref>2</ref>
|-

And they should be updated with scope="col" like this:

{|class="wikitable"
! scope="col" rowspan="2" width="33"| Year
! scope="col" rowspan="2" width="215"| Album details
! scope="col" colspan="10"| Peak chart positions
! scope="col" rowspan="2" width="145"| Sales
! scope="col" rowspan="2" width="125"| [[Music recording sales certification|Certifications]]<br /><small>([[List of music recording sales certifications|sales thresholds]])</small>
|-
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Billboard 200|US]]<br /><ref>1</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[ARIA Charts|AUS]]<br /><ref>3</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Austria|AUT]]<br /><ref>7</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Finland|FIN]]<br /><ref>9</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Netherlands|NLD]]<br /><ref>6</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[New Zealand|NZ]]<br /><ref>10</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Norway|NOR]]<br /><ref>4</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Sweden|SWE]]<br /><ref>8</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Switzerland|SWI]]<br /><ref>5</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[UK Albums Chart|UK]]<br /><ref>2</ref>
|-

So, what about it? It would be an enormous improvement for accessibility. And a crucial first step: most users create tables by copy-pasting other tables, so improving a significant portion of tables is the crucial step to teach users. Do you think it's possible? Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but wasn't there consensus being developed on turning these hard-coded tables into template-based tables? Never mind, I was thinking of Filmography. –xeno^talk 22:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, they did not discussed about it yet. But it could be a good idea, I was thinking about it too. At the very least, it would make the other upcoming changes much easier to do. And yes, it's probably a better solution on the long run. But I'll first have to discuss it with the DISCOG project. Dodoïste (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh Thank you a lot! You corrected a 2-years mistake !!! Thanks --Rirunmot (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

bewm headshot? –xeno^talk 23:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive 17#KingbotK issues "fixed". We changed the way the template name is entered. I updated the manual too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool - thanks. I'll have a go sometime soon. –xeno^talk 17:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a bit clueless with WP but noticed you've made quite a few comments about a bot that's made some changes to a page I've been invloved with. If you get chance would you take a look at what it's done here and tell me what I should do (if anything) botchanges It appears to have removed a full stop from one section (that I think was correct to be there) and done nothing to another section that the difference page says it did. Thanks in advance DancingGerbil (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it moved the period before the reference, which is a fix to comply with

manual of style. –xeno^talk

18:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That all seems to have worked. Thank you for the prompt service William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem - happy to help. Best regards, –xeno^talk 19:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The user has made several more fake articles in his userspace, some of which seem to be attempts to circumvent deletion discussions. Might want to take a look. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied @ user's talk.

Xeno - I think the Dylan Evans article history may need to be revdeleted if possible (specifically here and here). Could you take a look? There are additional comments on the talk page as well. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't access the provided source from this PC, so maybe find another admin for this. –xeno^talk 18:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Given the nature of the claims I'm trying to avoid a post at ANI if possible. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang on - you've done it! You're a star. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it became clear to me that the IP was being liberal with their word choice, to say the least. –xeno^talk 18:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I left another comment on our ongoing conversation on my talk page. I also wanted to tell you please don't take our disagreement personally. I still appreciate your help in the past and hope I can ask again in the future. It seems like we have agreed with most things in the past this topic just seems to be an exception of disagreement. Cheers --

talk

) 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise (same goes for Magioladatis who I appreciate in other respects). –xeno^talk 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I left another reply on my talk page. --

talk

) 23:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have started an RfC on inappropriate userboxes, i.e. those that don't follow the introductory paragraph at

"A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX) is a small colored box ... designed to appear only on a

Wikipedian's

user page as a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles."

How does a userbox about a user's own preferences in regards to what topics on Wikipedia they hate and what type of sexually explicit material they like and actively view help Wikipedians collaborate with one another? Which is the question I am raising.

This introductory paragraph over at

Delivered by

I saw that you contributed to Kisumu, I was wondering whether we could work together to update the Kisumu page which currently reads like a travel brochure, which is very undeserving for a leading town in East Africa. If possible could you constructively help me make it better, I am hoping to get together a work group of contributers to help out so that it is something close to the Nairobi page. I will be working on this for the next week or two, if you have some spare time I will be glad if you could help me open up Kisumu to the world. Thanks!--Krator1 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied @ user's talk.

Hello! Since you have used MessageDeliveryBot a fair bit in the past, you might be interested in participating in a discussion on my talk page where we are discussing which messages are acceptable and which aren't, possibly to create a set of rules to avoid further misunderstandings. - EdoDodo ^talk 08:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Missed those in the diff. Syrthiss (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. –xeno^talk 16:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There are two types of controversial edits nowadays:

1. Replacing template redirects with the redirect
2. Adding/removing whitespace around bullets and headers

• • Changing casing

The discussion you started in

I think standarising DABlinks isn't quite in the first case since the templates aren't redirects. Some of them were recently become wrapper templates but always by corrupting template's full functionality.

I am just writing this more as information. I appreciate your effort to keep things in a certain frame even if I believe that you have been a bit unfair with me sometimes. This doesn't mean I believe that you aren't a good bureaucrat because I really believe you are. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The main issue there was that you orphaned the template and then went to TFD. Discussion should come first. I'm glad there's no hard feelings; and feeling is mutual - I appreciate the good work you do elsewhere.

To be honest, I think I'm going to stop bothering about insignificant and trivial edits - it's too draining - I'm actually trying to have

someone write a script so that I can omit some editors' minor edits from my watchlist

.

Could you explain a little more about the Adding/removing whitespace around bullets and headers - I don't think I've commented on this much except to suggest that it's a personal preference and there's no need to flip flop back-and-forth (because it pollutes the diff and probably ticks editors off who set it a certain way).

Cheers, –xeno^talk 16:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

About the TfD: Not many people participate in TfDs regularly. If you check my contributions working in standarision and helping on TfDs is something I did a lot. Many people come to TfD after seeing that a template is being deleted and the main argument is "Don't delete it. It's used in xxxx pages" ignoring that a better template may have appeared meanwhile. The discussion I had with the non-admin who speedy closed by TfD nomination is revealing on that. Check User talk:Kotniski that no speedy keep criteria were used.

About the whitespace: They are some editors adding whitespace after bullets and some editors removing space after bullets. Both using semi-automated scripts. I am just informing you in case you want to take some action. I tried to talk to some of them. You probably can guess who are they. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Still best to give the community an opportunity to object, rather than delivering them

fait accompli - that's almost never appreciated. Thanks for the note about the whitespace issue. –xeno^talk

16:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in but in regards to blank space removal. Is it acceptable to allow the edits to process when all we are removing is the blank space between inline citations and the preceding word? --

talk

) 17:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of minor, but it seems to accord with

Wikipedia talk:AWB#What constitutes an insignificant or inconsequential edit?. –xeno^talk

17:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I find removing the space between citation and text welcome. When I print pages I am sometimes getting annoyed of this small space :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

They won't fight. I see no reason why not to run both at the same time. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 18:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If they'll play nice with eachother and CbVI won't place erroneous messages about users' not being notified when they were (because the note didn't meet the precise regex being used), then that's fine. But the new bot has additional functionality like notes about the SUL, and so forth. –xeno^talk 18:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This could get

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 278° 41' 45" NET

18:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I remove an unsourced category from a BLP, namely Juan de la Rosa, with an edit summary pointing to the relevant policies and guidelines. User:PolvoMexicano restored the unsourced category here.
2. I again removed the BLP violation and left an expanded explanation on PolvoMexicano's talk page, which is then blanked by User:Tabcash in this edit.
3. I restored the deleted content and left a message explaining why at Talk:Tabcash
4. Both pages were then blanked with the message "They are both my pages"

Is this a legitimate use of

Undisclosed socks are generally frowned upon, especially if they 'creat[e] an illusion of support' or 'contribut[e] to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts'. It may be best to suggest the user use some scheme like {{

User alternate acct}} to link to the two accounts - to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Let me know if I've missed anything, –xeno^talk

20:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I will leave a note for User:Tabcash as this is the account he used to perform the reverts. It seems strange that he would be editing from both counts within the same time period...Do you happen to know the link for the tool that can identify overlap on article contribution between two accounts? I'm drawing a blank but would like to check to make sure there hasn't been any <ahem> shenanigans. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

[4] –xeno^talk 20:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do a quick review of the overlaps. It is likely innocent enough, but it does seem strange that he flips from one account to the other to edit the same article within minutes of each other. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

He should probably avoid that. –xeno^talk 20:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Xeno. Jack 1958 is having difficulty proving they are who they claim to be. I can't provide any hard evidence, but I'm more than happy to vouch for this claim. Jack forbes - the human behind the account(s) - was a sociable editor, with a defined group of friends on Wikipedia - none of whom have expressed any doubt that Jack 1958 is Jack forbes. That group (myself,

It's enough for me =] –xeno^talk 14:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A big thanks to both of you. Jack forbes (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact I am on a Wikibreak I noticed you said "if only he would agree to drop these rules" - maybe you hadn't noticed that SmackBot has dropped ALL RULES for weeks which is why there is a backlog, and also why the bug that pisses CBM off is present. I have cleared up after this bug manually (including picking up many expressions of it that SB would normally fix with no-one being the wiser) - and yet I see people saying ... oh well you know what they say. But the point is you are as close to his as anyone, fairly level headed and analytical, and completely missed the biggest step change in SmackBot's behaviour ever... I am puzzled. Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

The edits from SmackBot on Oct 18 look fine, but you were still running the same rules from your main account (or making the same edits "in the browser", to give the benefit of the doubt)? I understand you like it this way ({{

Flag icon}} instead of {{flagicon}}, ==Headline text== instead of == Headline text ==, etc. [as far as I understand, AWB should no longer be changing the capitalization of templates]) but others might not, and in the end, who really cares? I don't care about the actual minor bits themselves, but when they bloat diffs and clog watchlists, it is an unnecessary annoyance. Can't those sundry items just be left alone (how the main editors of the page set them)? The "our new editors won't be able to get it" is a fairly thin argument in my mind (wikicode is not rocket science). –xeno^talk

17:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Q3 2010 version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/draft is pretty much ready to go to be distributed out. I was wondering if you wanted to distribute that out with your bot, as you have done in the past, or if you want me to use my bot to do that. –MuZemike 02:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You can go ahead and deliver it if you want; I was going to use User:MessageDeliveryBot this time around. –xeno^talk 12:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

RE:

I was assuming good faith on Rich's part. Thanks for the swift response. –xeno^talk 15:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I meant to contact you (xeno) about that. to my mind this is a retrogade step caused by moral panic over capitals. Lamest moral panic ever? Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

What I find interesting is that no objections were made while the auto-tagger changed the case to lcfirst. You should consider the possibility your preferred presentation of wikicode is not widely shared. –xeno^talk 16:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We should also consider that only one or possibly two editors ever complained about Ucfirst for cleanup templates prior to the Cite explosion. We might also take into account that there are over 500 cleanup templates where there are either less lcfirst than Ucfirst usage or no lcfirst at all (324 templates). Rich Farmbrough, 00:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

Bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy there, though; what with SmackBot changing the capitalization en passent, no? –xeno^talk 13:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a couple questions about one of your bots. The bot that does the tagging and assessment of articles in particular. I am going to be asking for some taggin' and assessin' of some categories of articles that fall under WPUS but I need some clarification on your instructions if you don't mind.

1. You say in the instructions that you need me to make a page with the categories. Can use the parent category or do I need to list all of the individual subcategories to mine through?
2. Do you have a way of excludion? For example if I said I wanted to add the banner to all the Articles under American military personnel but not if they had say a certain category or a certain Wikiproject banner (like another US related one). Could you do that? Maybe if I were to provide a seperate page?
3. Is there a limit to the number I can give you at a time. My intent is to do a couple of categories at a time but the first 2 are about 50-70,000 articles all together, which might irritate some users if their watchlists start filling up. I was just wondering how long I needed to plan for before I submit the next batch.

Thanks again for the help. --

1. It's best to list them all (to account for cross-category pollution, i.e. Category:Thailand gets to Category:WWII and beyond), but it really depends on the parent category.
2. Sure, it's usually done by AWB so it would just be added to the skip if contains
3. Not really a limit, no.

User:Xenobot/R. I could give you the code if you want =] –xeno^talk

18:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Yeah if you don't mind sharing the code that would be awesome. I already have a bot account, I just haven't used it yet. --

talk

) 18:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And I would of course do a BRFA and get the blessing before I started. --

talk

) 18:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The code is here (many thanks are due to Rich Farmbrough for generating the banner redirect bypassing). I think it's fairly stable, but the "moving" bits might need watching, so be sure to keep an eye on it at least for the first little while. What you do is build a list of articles needing tagged, filter for articles already tagged and assessed in list comparer, Special:Export the article pages and then in database scanner, search for -stub}} - this will be your list to auto-stub (which is handled by KingbotK plugin's auto-stub ticky). The remaining articles not identified you want to convert to talk pages and export those, and then search for:

contains: (class[ ]*=[ ]*(stub|start|list|c|b|GA|FA|FL)|currentstatus[ ]*=[ ]*(FA|FL|GA))

not contains: (class[ ]*=[ ]*stub.*?class[ ]*=[ ]*(start|list|b|c|FA|FL|GA)|class[ ]*=[ ]*start.*?class[ ]*=[ ]*(stub|list|b|c|FA|FL|GA)|class[ ]*=[ ]*list.*?class[ ]*=[ ]*(stub|start|b|c|FA|FL|GA)|class[ ]*=[ ]*b.*?class[ ]*=[ ]*(stub|list|start|c|FA|FL|GA)|class[ ]*=[ ]*c.*?class[ ]*=[ ]*(stub|list|start|b|FA|FL|GA)|class[ ]*=[ ]*FA.*?class[ ]*=[ ]*(stub|list|start|c|b|FL|GA)|class[ ]*=[ ]*FL.*?class[ ]*=[ ]*(stub|list|start|c|b|FA|GA)|class[ ]*=[ ]*GA.*?class[ ]*=[ ]*(stub|list|start|c|b|FA|FL))

(check off single line)

This will give you articles with no arguments between projects on the ratings. This is what you want to run using the advanced rules to inherit the classes. The remaining articles will just be straight tagging unless you are using length-based auto-assessment. It's been a while and I'm rusty so I hope this is accurate! –xeno^talk 18:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

thats awesome thanks. --

talk

) 18:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Let me know if you run into any problems. –xeno^talk 18:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry got 2 questions already.

1. Do I build a module with the code you provided or do I just save it as a settings file (I assume the latter since its xml but not sure)
2. For the not contains code above. Why do you have to put the classes over and over so many times? --
   talk
   ) 18:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Np! 1) Save it as .xml. 2) The regex is looking for class disagreements (i.e. not contains class=stub + class=[anything other than stub]) - it's for the

"default" logic. Which reminds me - during auto-stub, you should skip any talk pages that contain class=anything other than stub. It should be already there in the skip if settings. –xeno^talk

18:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, The reason I ask is when I line all the code up the first one is a group with start in the beginning and then the last 7 start with stub with the classes in different orders. I wasn't sure why that was. Also, I tried to open it with my regular account but it gave me a userprefs error. I assume its cause I wasnt logged in as a bot but not sure. --

talk

) 19:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, 2 last questions I hope. When Xenobot does its tag and assessment does it assess all the banners that require assessment or just the one your tagging? Also, is it possible to make it not add a C class assessment to the WPMILHIST banner? --

talk

) 23:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Just the one that you're tagging. I forgot to tell you that you have to do a find/replace of the WikiProject Darts (or Running, not sure) to replace it with the project you're working on. Tagging other banners wouldn't be right, because not all projects use/like auto-assessment. Regarding WPMILHIST & C-class: that would be something you would have to propose to the project. –xeno^talk 13:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the WPMILHIST project is talking about it but I didnt want to accidentally tag or assess a project that didnt want it or use an incorrect C class for WPMILHIST. --

talk

) 15:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 3, No. 2 — 3rd Quarter, 2010
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3

2010

, the project has:

134 Featured Articles 40 Featured Lists 12 Featured Topics

36 A-Class Articles 446 Good Articles 5 Good Topics

---

Content

Changes to Featured and Good content News items and announcements

Feature: New article announcements and article requests Featured editor: Deckiller

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 19:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno, but not possible due to fix for Mediawikibug breaking SB' only way of telling if a template has been dated. Also I will have to recompile and re-patch and I haven't even mad a non-broken version for my own use from the previous update yet. Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Your bot is making controversial changes. –xeno^talk 02:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we had resolved to do a quarterly Chicago tagging run and I think the last run was at the end of July. If you have time could you put your bot to work for us.--

I'll try to get to this shortly. –xeno^talk 17:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is  Done. –

xeno^talk

15:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Fitzgerald (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

How is she not notable? To speedy delete under G4 the copy must be "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" and "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version." As I don't know what the original page looked like I don't know for sure but I would have to believe this is the case. She is referenced in many major sources. Many of them in depth including The Times, Time magazine, People magazine, The Washington Post . . . In fact there are references of her in just about every major news source, many of which are in depth. It is hard to fathom how she is not notable considering some of the other people which are considered "notable."

A couple policy arguments

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"

This is without a doubt the case here.

"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]"

Not only is the coverage substantial but there are multiple independent sources with in depth coverage.

Please consider these arguments and I hope you will restore the article. Thank you --UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The article you prepared did not address the major concerns raised in the AFD as delineated by the closing admin. You can go to

WP:DRV on either the original deletion, or my G4 deletion, if you like. –xeno^talk

15:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

---OK thanks. You are still not addressing the fact that she is notable by the essential basic policy of notability. In my experience it seems like basic wiki policy has been vastly contorted by admins.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be the case, but I cannot perform a de novo review of the deletion discussion here - that's for DRV. –xeno^talk 15:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh. Was the deletion even worthy under G4 as noted earlier? Isn't it kind of a silly policy since we can't even see the earlier version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UhOhFeeling (talk • contribs) 15:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - as the G4'd article was actually much worse in terms of

WP:UNDUE weight given to the alleged affair than the version on the day of deletion. I can send you some snapshots of the article at various points in time, if you want. (You'll need to enable email or give me an email address) –xeno^talk

15:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Snapshots would help thanks. Also under deletion policy "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Maybe the version was no good but still, it could be edited to be better. Certainly she is notable under basic wiki policy.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

(Let me know when you enable email, then) FWIW, your article was actually not an article on Jennifer Fitzgerald, it was an article on "Alleged affair between GHWB and Jennifer Fizgerald". –xeno^talk 15:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jennifer Fitzgerald

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jennifer Fitzgerald. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

This is mischaracterizing the article. There are notes about her disputes with Bush's staff. Also she is notable beyond rumors of the affair as other editors in the deletion discussion agree.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm heading out, after your email is set I can send you those snapshots later today. –xeno^talk 16:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'll set it up, thanks.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

How are people supposed to know what they are arguing about if they can't even see it? This process is so utterly backwards and silly it's mind-boggling. I am becoming increasingly surprised at the blatant unfairness, lack of simple common sense, and cavalier attitude concerning the rules, by admins and others at wikipedia. People were arguing there was a BLP and Undue issues concerning the "rumor" language in the Fitzgerald article. The version of the article before deletion DOESN'T even mention rumors of the affair. I make this point and then you delete the article? Truly mind-boggling.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If I had thought it was appropriate to postit onwiki, I would've simply done so! But I see your point, I restored it for the duration of the DRV so nonadmins can make an informed decision. –

xeno^talk

15:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact I am on a Wikibreak I noticed you said "if only he would agree to drop these rules" - maybe you hadn't noticed that SmackBot has dropped ALL RULES for weeks which is why there is a backlog, and also why the bug that pisses CBM off is present. I have cleared up after this bug manually (including picking up many expressions of it that SB would normally fix with no-one being the wiser) - and yet I see people saying ... oh well you know what they say. But the point is you are as close to his as anyone, fairly level headed and analytical, and completely missed the biggest step change in SmackBot's behaviour ever... I am puzzled. Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

The edits from SmackBot on Oct 18 look fine, but you were still running the same rules from your main account (or making the same edits "in the browser", to give the benefit of the doubt)? I understand you like it this way ({{

Flag icon}} instead of {{flagicon}}, ==Headline text== instead of == Headline text ==, etc. [as far as I understand, AWB should no longer be changing the capitalization of templates]) but others might not, and in the end, who really cares? I don't care about the actual minor bits themselves, but when they bloat diffs and clog watchlists, it is an unnecessary annoyance. Can't those sundry items just be left alone (how the main editors of the page set them)? The "our new editors won't be able to get it" is a fairly thin argument in my mind (wikicode is not rocket science). –xeno^talk

17:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(aside) Yes wikicode is not rocket science to us. But then nor is rocket science. You, or anyone, can talk to me about diff bloat, and we can have a proper, sensible conversation about it. Watchlist clogging is not an issue - that is caused by editing, if the edits are sound robotic edits, people need to suppress robots on their watchlist. If they are sound human edits then Mag's comment is absolutely correct. To say "I can't see the vandalism because all these articles are being improved" is totally screwed logic, by which we would all stop editing and keep very still, waiting to pounce on the vandals, who, together with the reverters would be doing all the edits. No one is claiming, at least in my earshot, that I am making a significant number of cosmetic only edits. If they are it would be fairly simple to refute. Rich Farmbrough, 05:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

No, not running the same rules. You will not find a correctly capitalized Find a Grave in any article I have edited for some time, unless it was correctly capitalised before. Same for Londongazette, Infobox Indian Jurisdiction (bar 2 or 3 I changed by hand), imdb name (again maybe I have corrected 2 or 3) - I have just let all that stuff run to ruin - I'm sure it helps the encyclopaedia to do so - it's just not clear to me how. Rich Farmbrough, 05:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Please show me the consensus that establishes lcfirst as "incorrect". Your statement begs the question. –

xeno^talk

15:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Some things are too obvious. The consensus is that no-one uses "find a Grave" anyone who does is clearly slipping on the shift key. Why would anyone write "uS", "bLP" (no one has by the way) or "jewish"? The consensus is shown by the fact that almost all clean up templates use capitals, almost all infoboxes use capitals, the majority of template calls use ucfirst. We can, perhaps, except "convert" and "cite" and indeed I have done so. So - summary - there was a complaint, albeit heated, extended and not handled as well as it might, the cause of the complaint was removed. End of. Or it should be. Rich Farmbrough, 15:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

You may find it obvious, I don't. And I've already suggested the reason most cleanup templates are ucfirst is because your bot changed them to be that way. Just stop changing the caps and this whole hubabaloo will dry up. Why you continue to dig in your heels is beyond me. –

xeno^talk

15:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Rich, I don't get why you continue to make edits like this, except as a provocation. Amalthea 16:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Amalthea. Edits like that and this serve no purpose other the annoy other edits and cause disruption. They go against policy and community norms, please stop making them. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with Amalthea on the edit they mentioned.

talk

) 17:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

NHRP is the accepted abbreviation for National Register of Historic Places, it is the correct name of the template and is widely used. Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

The reason is simple. If I (we) stopped making edits because they were disagreed with there would be no edits. I have had people asking me why I add dates to templates "as it makes no change to the page", and suggesting that I not do it. I am prepared to make changes to deal with real issues, and sometimes even with non-issues (like the CBM thing - but look where that got me), but at soem point I am being asked to do additional work to satisfy one or two people. Or in this case no people. The two complaints on my page were perfectly reasonable ones from Amalthea and Headbomb.

1. Please stop capitalising Cite templates.
2. "And can't you just please use a bot-flaged account for those edits so that they don't always fill up my watchlist?"

Admittedly Amalthea thinks I'm slightly cuckoo to change them - there is an example rule in another discussion that might change that. But talking about capitalising the request was

Please stop capitalising Cite templates.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Stop going off on tangents and just stop capitalizing templates until you gather consensus to do so. –xeno^talk 21:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

← This is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Rich Farmbrough's persistent disregard for community norms and (semi-)automated editing guidelines (perm). –xeno^talk 22:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi xeno, I hope you took no offense by me rollbacking the recent thread you started at AN. It was completely unintentional, I didn't even know that I did it until someone pointed it out to me. My apologies J04n(talk page) 00:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't even noticed - don't sweat it. Happens to me all the time. –xeno^talk 01:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Xeno! I noticed that there's a bit of a backlog of

That would be great. Note I just did CHI last night. Thanks! –

xeno^talk

14:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I did the

WP:SPEED SKATING task, went smootly. I've added a couple of nice new features to my script: the configuration is now loaded from a file which is supplied as a command-line argument instead of being hardcoded in the script. The actual configuration file is created with a separate python script that asks the user a series of questions and creates the file accordingly. This loading of configuration files makes it easier to schedule jobs (for each WikiProject you can have a cron job that passes the correct config file). Also, there is now full support for non-ASCII characters. If you'd like to try it out, it's up in my SVN repository (main script config file generator). - EdoDodo ^talk

20:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds pretty awesome. Feel free to pick up any jobs that get posted there, in fact, would you mind if I placed a note that Xenobot is on a semi-sabbatical and to contact you instead? –xeno^talk 21:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that would be fine with me. Do note however that my bot currently only supports the default logic, although I may add support for the other ones soon. Also, the auto-stub/inheit conflict is always handled by always using inherit, which is slightly different to how your bot does it, although I might change this to be configurable soon. - EdoDodo ^talk 06:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Meh, had a bit of time so implemented all of the different assessment styles now. Still needs a bit of testing, though. - EdoDodo ^talk 06:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I still have to get around to trying that thing. How do I grab it? I have an SVN interface thingee installed for AWB, do I use that? –xeno^talk 15:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if you wish. Otherwise you can just save these two files: main script config file generator in the same directory as pywikipedia. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool beans. –xeno^talk 16:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As I work to clean up and resurrect WP:United States I have found a bunch of templates that either aren't used at all or are only used on a couple of pages. Is there anyway that you know of to see templates that arent used or only have a certain number of links? Maybe less than 10 --

Maybe a

WP:DBR? –xeno^talk

12:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I can't recall if we've had any interactions in the past, and I don't know if you're "uninvolved" in the matter, but I've seen you around the noticeboards and my impresssion is that your judgment is generally quite good. Would you take a look at this please, and, if you think you fit the bill, and are interested in doing so, comment there? Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, shoot, I just noted that you are mentioned by name in the RfC/U involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

heh =) FWIW, I concur with Floq at the thread. Just say your piece and make a swift exit. –xeno^talk 12:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Have done, and will do. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, I don't disagree, but I didn't want to leave a malformed RFA there when it was the intent of the user to transclude. But if you want to take responsibility for it, that's fine by me. Regards. --Bsherr (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Where do you see an intention to transclude? (Here, I guess?) From a general standpoint, it's best to try and convince these users not to run rather than help them into the bear pit. One way to go about this is to first ask them to reconsider, and then if they still seem to want to go ahead, tell them to transclude it themselves. At that point, if they can't figure out how to transclude it, they perhaps might realize that they aren't ready. –xeno^talk 16:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it unlikely the user understood that the RFA wasn't being considered. My understanding is that these are to be transcluded, then snowball stopped, but I don't know much about the subject. I don't like seeing new users impeded from lack of technical skill alone. Your course of action was better. I guess I should have stayed out of it. Like I said, I'm delighted to pass it off to someone else. --Bsherr (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A fair point; but rather than doing it for them, you could just direct them to

WP:PASSRFA). –xeno^talk

16:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I'm not as intuitive as you yet. You usually know just the thing to do. --Bsherr (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries =) –xeno^talk 16:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• User talk:Themeparkgc
• [5], [6].

Wikipedia is full of this "phenomenon" of minor edits. A part of it is connected with the thing that new names for templates were recently introduced. This is the reason that this part it seems to be on the hype this period. It's clear that the part of bypassing redirects will increase by time. The part of changing editing style won't. The same happens of adding unnecessary templates which have to be cleaned up at some point. This is where we should focus, I think. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC) -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think you're right in that we should perhaps try to clarify things at a central location. Trying to gain compliance on a per-editor basis has been an exhausting process. –xeno^talk 12:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been any vandalism at these pages, but I would like to make there never is. Could you indef semi-protect the archives 1-7 on this page (see the drop down menu in the box on the right for links), please? It would be greatly appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason not to do 8 and 9 while I'm there? –xeno^talk 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No reason really, I had it in my mind that 8 and 9 would be full protected (brain ain't working yet, need more caffeine), so yeah, please protect those 2 as well, thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done You're all set. –xeno^talk 13:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. :) Much appreciated. :) Take Care and Have a Good Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re your discussion at AN/I and with TFWOR, please note the name is still visible on the Talk page history. Daicaregos (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorted - thanks. –xeno^talk 15:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection at Talk:Johnny Weir expired ten days ago, and the obscene troll is back. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I declared watchlist bankruptcy yesterday so it wasn't on my watchlist anymore. –xeno^talk 15:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I forgot the password to A Common Man, so I started a new account -

Thank you. -

Actually, I remembered I know you under another name so here is the progression.

BRTman666 renamed TONO459 renamed A Common Man forgotten password Vaarsivius.

Thank you for listening. -

Do you have any way to verify that? The email is set - can't you reset the password? In the meantime, I added confirmed to your account so you might be able to use Twinkle now. –xeno^talk 15:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got a new e-mail account, which is a bummer. And thanks for enabling Twinkle. You are a valuable user. -

Talk to me.

) 16:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your tea is ready.

Someone has poured you tea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peterborough&diff=next&oldid=364158080 Rich Farmbrough, 18:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

What am I looking at here? Spacing around headers? (It's from May, is it still doing it?) –xeno^talk 18:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

=>. Yes. I have no idea. Rich Farmbrough, 20:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

As far as I can tell it doesn't do that anymore, but if it did the op should be pinged. Looks like cosmetic.py maybe? –xeno^talk 20:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the title. For a moment there, I thought I was hallucinating since I was about to check to see if there was anything else I should comment at. :P Netalarm^talk 23:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

;> –xeno^talk 23:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at this post on ANI and really can't see how any of the changes you posted about are bad or need consensus. Essentially, it would just be the bot tidying up things on the page. Personally, I would welcome that if it were me. Please show me how this isn't a pile-on from previous ANI threads. I really don't see anything that requires continued monitoring of Rich, blocking of a good bot and good editor/admin, and almost hounding the poor guy to death. I think we should leave him be until he has done something bad. This isn't need the Beta/Triangle problems that everyone seems to be comparing Rich to. If there isn't something I am seeing, please let me know, cause I see tidying up and nothing bad. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's basically because he was fixing things that weren't broken. At the height of his ruleset, the diffs were enormous - changing dozens of {{cite web}} to {{Cite web}}, all the spacing around the headers, replacing {{flagicon}} with a redirect, etc. It made it hard to review the diff to see what the actual "meat" of the edit was. Had he simply eliminated these rules when queried about them, probably megabytes of discussion could have been saved and he wouldn't be under a restriction now. The restrictions he's under are pretty much the same rules all AWB editors are asked to adhere to, simply codified to be explicit. –xeno^talk 12:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. Essentially the community is asking him to not fix what ain't broken. Gotcha. Yeah, there is a bot operator that is doing the same thing going around adding "(disambiguation)" to disambig pages that don't have "(disambiguation)" in the title, essentially creating redirects where none should be. Fixing something that ain't broken. So that I am all too familiar with. Well, I understand know and support anything that curtails that to a minimum. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That task has approval and an apparently reasonable rationale, afaik. –xeno^talk 13:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I mentioned you in this thread at MoS. Tony (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 13:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Noticed the AN discussion on unsourced BLPs. Am about to head to bed and am on mobile, so it'd be too troublesome for me to add a post at this time, and I saw you're involved with the discussion. How about bringing up

Dropped a note there. Cheers, –xeno^talk 15:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to vote for T11790. Rich Farmbrough, 15:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for the note, but I used expand watchlist and I don't hide minor or bot edits. Cheers, –xeno^talk 15:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I meant because it would help the project to get that resolved. Rich Farmbrough, 18:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

I'm not sure the votes on bugzilla even do any good or speed up the fixing process. Normally I vote just to keep something I care about on the votelist so I can find it later. –xeno^talk 18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I *think* you're more a bot guy than a java/css/etc guy, but I figure it's funner to bother you than ask at VPT; you're more likely to answer, and less likely to make fun of my dinosaur-like incompetence with all this newfangled computer stuff the kids are all talking about these days. Plus I get to say "hi".

If I wanted to change my interface rather drastically, adding the "my talk" "my preferences" etc from my personal toolbar at the top of the page to the side toolbar; rearrange/add/remove some of the other links there now; and prevent the side tool bar from scrolling... would it be best for me to play with javascript, or css, or some other thing? Have you heard of such a script/stylesheet/etc that sounds similar that I could play with instead of starting from scratch? Just asking you for a 1-minute suggestion of what direction to investigate further and what directions to ignore, nothing more. I'm willing to fiddle with it myself, as a combination learning experience and something to ease the boredom while sick at home (Goddamn enchilada plate), but I'd love a little nudge in the right direction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds pretty complicated... Javascript, I'd bet. I haven't fooled around with any of the other skins, I would check there first if I were you. You can add "useskin" - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xeno&useskin=cologneblue (replacing cologneblue with whatever skin name) to preview. –xeno^talk 17:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll play with those first (I still use monobook because I fear change). Hope all's well with you, it's been a while. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, on both counts =] –xeno^talk 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Try User:Ioeth/friendlysidebar.js for a fixed sidebar. Not sure how well it works. Amalthea 19:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ciao, Xeno; I've been tinkering around with the pages for this years

Hm, what needs done? –xeno^talk 15:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Make it easy for candidates to create a profile page, and two subpages which would be transcluded on that page. Skomorokh 15:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yea, that's easy enough. You just create the "preload" templates and then use an inputbox. Model it after the nominate for adminship code below. –xeno^talk 15:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

<inputbox>
type=create
preload=Template:RfA/subst
default=Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/USERNAME
buttonlabel=Nominate yourself
bgcolor=#eeeeff
width=50
</inputbox>

I have one of those at

WP:ACECANDY, it's just figuring out how to do the subpages (/Statement and /Questions) inside that that's tripping me up. Skomorokh

15:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One clever way to go about it would be to use an #IFEXIST statement to see if the page exists yet. If not, the template can nest two more preload buttons to create those pages. –xeno^talk 15:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I have {{ACE candidate page}}; would there be a way of using #IFEXIST to replace those nesteded preloaders with /Subpage links once they are created? Skomorokh 15:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably (ifexist->call subpage else,show inputbox), but check out

ACEcan}} [7]. The secret is to copy the URL that the input box creates so you don't have to worry about a long block of code. –xeno^talk

16:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's a very neat trick. I'll see if I can work with just {{

ACEcan}} to create the two subpages. Thanks heaps, Skomorokh

16:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No prob, let me know if you run into any problems. –xeno^talk 16:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#ProfessorLoesch_.E2.86.92_DoctorFuManchu

I went with your suggestion. Thanks for the advice!

Thank y'kindly. DoctorFuManchu (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Happy editing, –xeno^talk 20:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm not seen as the most co-operative Wikipedian. However, I'm beginning to wonder if there's any possibility of exploring common ground and seeing if there's any way to build coalition behind some modest agreements. I've set out my thoughts at

Definitely has merit and it's a good starting point for real agreement. Just a minor point, I'd suggest changing pigs to cats =]. As far as noindexing articlespace, this isn't possible right now and I'm not sure it should be. That's more sweeping under the carpet rather than vacuuming. –xeno^talk 12:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Grapesoda22 owns this sock. Should a checkuser check to see what other socks are being used? Also should Grapesoda22 be blocked for Sock puppetry? Inka888^ContribsTalk 05:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That looks like very old news; they were blocked in 2009 for it. –xeno^talk 17:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

But was there a sock puppet investigation? Inka888^ContribsTalk 18:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Why bother looking into it nearly a year later? I'm willing to assume the administrators who were involved made the right decisions at the time. Is there some ongoing disruption? –xeno^talk 18:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've actually been involved with Grapesoda22 a few times. S/he does not seem like a disruptive editor. He seems like a good faith editor who is a bit incompetent. Inka888^ContribsTalk 18:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Best to let sleeping dogs lie then. –xeno^talk 19:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I would appreciate your input on http://admintools.wikia.com/wiki/Admin_Tools_Wiki:Requests_for_rights/Heymid - thanks!   —

Have no idea what that site is, or what privileges or benefit adminship over there grants - no comment. –xeno^talk 17:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Xeno, could you be so nice to read what I wrote here? MBisanz told me you would perhaps help. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Depending on the size of the task, it's probably best just to go through

WP:BRFA. –xeno^talk

13:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this good enough to be a featured picture? Inka888^ContribsTalk 01:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Not my conersation but probably not. Its a bot to dark around the bottom area, a little out of focus and there's too much noise. Its a beautiful picture and you can try but its probably not going to pass in my opinion. --

talk

) 02:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the featured picture process. –xeno^talk 13:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 13:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know I submitted the first bot request to tag and assess some articles related to Wikiproject United States. I havent been able to figure out how to implement the coding you sent me yet so rather than wait until I can and until I get a bot req approved I submited the first group. I posted a comment on the WPUS talk page (as well as a dozen or so of the most active subprojects) and knowone seems opposed with the exception of the 2 comments I left on the request. Thanks in advance for the help and please let me know if you have any questions. --

Ok, will see if I get some time to run this. –xeno^talk 13:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I had to make a chaneg to the request based on some last minute comments. I removed one of the requested items from the list. Also, would it be too late to request that at the same time the bot does an assessment run through the articles that link to Template:WikiProject United States? If you want me to do that separately its no problem. --

talk

) 17:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean assess Category:Unassessed United States articles? Sure. –xeno^talk 17:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes sorry I should have been more clear. --

talk

) 17:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Do note that (at this time), the texture of the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Project tagging by Xenobot doesn't seem like a solid consensus to tag new articles. –xeno^talk 17:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK we can wait. Theyve waited this long a little longer aint gonna hurt them. I think I am starting to see why the project died out though sigh. --

talk

) 17:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

After the discussion runs it course, a straw poll would be helpful to determine if consensus exists. –xeno^talk 17:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a bit of one to the discussion but its basically been between me and 2 other editors. Far from what I would consider consensus either way. Ill just go back to doing it by hand in the mean time. --

talk

) 18:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I can still do the autoassessment if no one objected to that. –xeno^talk 18:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok that would be a great start. Knowone objected to that. If they start screaming Ill let you know.--

talk

) 19:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As an editor involved in prior discussions over AWB, templates and first letter casing please consider commenting on this discussion thread. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Commented there - thanks. –xeno^talk 12:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at

Could you point out the similarities? Or maybe file SPI? –xeno^talk 12:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it was a bad assumption on my part. It should be OK now.

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 317° 58' 30" NET

21:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. –xeno^talk 21:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Though, I wonder - what are the chances that two separate IF86 socks are targeted for usurp in as many months? (e.g.) Just a coincidence, or maybe he's having a laugh... –xeno^talk 22:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember that request. I also remember that MisterHappydolphin withdrew the request prematurely after seeing the automated message from

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 341° 47' 15" NET

22:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm - I don't think the steward would have done any checking. –xeno^talk 23:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I know it's usually "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action", but in this case I would hazard a guess that two is enemy action. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well by the looks of things, this is five times. It looks like

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 358° 57' 44" NET

23:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your socky-sense seems to have been spot on in this case. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. –xeno^talk 04:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I found the "socky sense" quite amusing and to think I ended up here through improving the usurpation templates! :)

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 314° 39' 15" NET

20:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably you could generate a list of the category, convert to talk pages, use

WPUS}} but you could also scan for {{WP and class[ ]*= –xeno^talk

17:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. The last time I used excel to add [[ ]] to the article and then pasted it to one of my sandboxes, then I cut out the non red links. But then there are a lot the have comments with no banners so that only gets me so far. Ill try your idea thanks. I also asked Rich so Ill see what Ideas he has as well. Im sure theres a way to make this work. --

talk

) 18:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is(was?) a bot that would watch for new articles in project scope. Name escapes me at present, though. –xeno^talk 18:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh thanks, I will check that out. I already have my eye on 6 bots in some form or fashion. My plan is to employ every bot and tool I can find to build the project and the articles up. --

talk

) 18:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Could

talk

) 18:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's ^ the one Thanks. –xeno^talk 18:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep thanks. Im adding that to the list of bots/tools for the United States now. --

talk

) 18:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I saw something here about blocking a computer? I'm just wondering on how would you do that (Is an add-on needed)? The Wikis that I work on are being hit by a single person that changes their IP to avoid blocks and continues to vandalize on many new accounts so the IP/User blocks don't really work. A computer block might be more effective and permanent but I can't seem to find how on Google. T_T

Thanks, --WhiteTigerAE (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)(talk page stalker): Now I could be wrong, but I don't think we can block a specific computer (God, I wish we could), but we can block IP ranges and put in edit filters to block certain phrases or ranges of phrases. But actually blocking a specific computer, I don't think can be done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well. The verbiage on that template is probably just simplified for nontechnical users. –

xeno^talk

15:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/magazine/07FOB-medium-t.html?_r=2

--McDoobAU93 06:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sweet! Nice article. Hopefully recruits some editors... –xeno^talk 19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I know I had some trouble with NACs in the past, but this recent one is all right, isn't it? Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) No, Erpert. If you are not going to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions, then please do not close them. The whole idea of NACs is to reduce the workload of admins closing AfDs. You're not reducing that load if others have to come along and clean up after you. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'm confused in this instance. I didn't participate in that discussion at all, it was a bad-faith nomination (not originally determined by me), and no one !voted "keep". What am I missing? Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I know I'm being a little opaque about this, but given what the community has already addressed with you, I find it hard to understand why you are not being extra-super-careful. Reviewing your NACs, it's not clear to me that you've even read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Let's continue this on your talk page so as to not clog up Xeno's. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Sure; replied there. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Any input still required here? –xeno^talk 19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

New users like me, actually may be a lot of help to wikipedia. I have studied, examined, and watched wikipedia for a ling time; trying to understand it better. I have reviewed what you sent me here.. Thanks for your suggestion, but i plan to be an asset to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StartrekismylifeJadzia (talk • contribs) 23:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No user a history as brief as yours has ever passed RFA. FWIW I never spoke to you at the page you linked (it was your talk page). –xeno^talk 19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

for the username change. Regards, —

Sure thing =) –xeno^talk 19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Xeno, is your bot finished with the coordinates_region work for pages that use {{

No, it needs to remain for backwards compatibility and people who don't set the param. –

xeno^talk

14:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you archived this thread rather quickly! Is that really the best long-term solution...? Would it not be better (for example) to add a hidden tracking category to catch new articles? CountryAbbr is an awful solution, and really gets in the way of flag template maintenance work, as it causes too many false positives in what-links-here listings. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I have really swift archiving. Do feel free to pull out a thread whenever you don't get a chance to reply. A tracking category might work, but I think we'll need a different botop for maintaining the category. My time available for operating bots has greatly diminished. Go ahead and implement the tracking category and I'll see if I can squeeze out some time for the first maint. run. –xeno^talk 19:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. If the list is relatively small, I can do an AWB run myself to clean it out. But I will also submit a bot proposal. Thanks! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I reorganised User:Magioladitis/KingbotK and asked for approval for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 17.

Probably we can do User:Magioladitis/KingbotK#Class fixes (by xeno) as part of some kind of general fixes.

About the priority thing: Let's do it. It will be one off and saves from problems caused daily. In the past I opposed this change but now I see the benefit. The soonest we do it the best I think. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

114,000 edits? –xeno^talk 13:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I proposed 4-5 additions to save future runs. We can do a big part of Category:Biography articles without listas parameter parallel. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I can additionally automatically add the listas in all missing pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not 100% what changes you are planning so please excuse me if I mention something your already planning but if I may offer a couple suggestions as well. Convert priority to X-priority (where X = the appropriate WPBiography work group). If the article has X priority add X workgroup if missing or vice versa. Change |listas= %%title%% to |listas= %%key%%. I also recommend, if your there anyway (and I want to clarify it shoudlnt be done unless your already on the page making another change), to standardize the below list of redirects to WPBiography. They dont want the change to WikiProject from WP but I think this will help loads.

• Template:Bio
• Template:WP Bio
• Template:WP Biographies
• Template:WP Biography
• Template:WPBIO
• Template:WPBio
• Template:WPbiography
• Template:WikiProject Biography
• Template:WikiProject biography
• Template:Wikiproject Biography
• Template:Wikiproject biography
• Template:Wpbiography

I have also found several biographies that do not have the WPBIO banner. Im not sure if there is a bot thats supposed to add it but I have found about a dozen in the last week so thats something that might be an issue as well. Sorry too but in. --

talk

) 16:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not butting in, comments from the tps gallery are always welcome. –xeno^talk 14:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Kumioko, better suggest everything in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 17. All redirects will be bypassed in my run (not only for WPBiography). This is only one of the things I am planning to do. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad things are moving forward with KingbotK, let me know if I can be of any assistance. –xeno^talk 14:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am going to be doing a newsletter for WPUS at some point in the next month or so and I was wondering if you would be able to do the delivery with your bot and if so what do you need me to do to make it work? Thanks in advance. --

I don't deliver with Xenobot anymore, I use User:MessageDeliveryBot which is awesome. –xeno^talk 13:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Great thanks for the help. You might also want to update the Xenobot description too. --

talk

) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Should probably do that =) –xeno^talk 14:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This made my night. Killiondude (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

heh. Gld 2 b of srvc. –xeno^talk 14:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey I requested for you to merge an article one time and I was wondering if you could merge my contributions of my alternate account User:Captain Virtue with this account. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - at the present time it is impossible to merge accounts. –xeno^talk 14:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Sorry for the bother. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

[8] Very upsetting. In the old days we had crats like Deskana and WJB who were not afraid. Your suggestion to shove it to ARBCOM is exactly why I phrased the section as such. Have some backbone man. If it is an AE issue, fine - but YOU have the authority to deal with it in the microscope as this is affecting an RFA - which is the preserve of 'crats. What a let down mate - cummon - you're one of the better - bolder - crats and that is really disapointing. Pedro :  Chat  22:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you propose is done? Block them? Indent it? Shake our finger at them? You realize that opposes like that are likely to generate in excess of the net 3 supports needed to offset it, right? –xeno^talk 22:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I care not to discuss this further. The matter is ended, the post at BN removed, your little FYI to WMC observed and your backbone remains safely elsewhere it seems. Pedro :  Chat  22:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, angry, abrasive, and argumentative Pedro. How I miss calm, cool, and collected Pedro. He must be off with my spine somewhere. –xeno^talk 22:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

True. You did note that at the RFA I specifically told WMC that he'd attract support by opposing....? So the You realize that opposes like that are likely to generate in excess of the net 3 supports needed to offset it, right? comment says not a lot for your research or opinion of me....Pedro :  Chat  22:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't scroll up to the support section. FYI I don't believe you got a chance to reply in detail to my Apr 7 email, and things do not seem to have improved... –xeno^talk 22:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right - sorry. Pedro :  Chat  22:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Pedro, I know that you know that the this is really in the hands of the closer unless it gets too disruptive.

The closing bureaucrat can discount "votes" if they deem them inappropriate, and vice versa.

So your accusation (whether appropriate or not) might be best forestalled until the closure, I would think?

That aside, I have some other thoughts on these current dramas bleeding over into various places, but this thread (at least) is probably not the place for them... - jc37 22:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts are that stepping in now is likely to cause more drama than ignoring it. Pedro, this is a peculiar way of expressing your dissatisfaction with the responses to the BN thread. –xeno^talk 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hullo again, thanks for all your help with the election templatery. I had just one more question regarding those

Looking at mw:Extension:InputBox, I don't think that's possible. Don't quote me on it though. –xeno^talk 20:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please rename the aforementioned article as the school is an Academy and as such it is inappropriate to call the Academy a Senior High School at the same time.

the correct name; should simply be: Accra Academy

I would like to add that there already exist a page called Accra Academy which has been redirected to Accra Academy Senior High School, what is however disturbing is that the information on that later is more relevant than that of the former, which is the actual name of the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.221.209.5 (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This is  Done. Cheers, –xeno^talk 20:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your expedient assistance . Thank you very much Xeno.

Updated version at User:Rich Farmbrough/temp17.

• Note: needs checking for any oddities caused by strange punctuation.

• Note that it was strongly argues at Roads, and less strongly at MILHIST and Biography that the reason not to make the move was that the redirect was already there. Arguably this is a validates using the standard from redirect. To to this simply edit the appropriate rule.

Rich Farmbrough, 03:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

I don't think it's productive to replace a template with a template redirect. These two/three can be the exception and I don't think it will be a huge issue. –xeno^talk 14:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple problems with just leaving it as it is:

1. Some of the AWB logic is designed to use the standard WikiProject X for some of the logic like adding WikiProjectBannerShell. Since the WPBIo and WPMilhist projects are on so many pages there is a huge chunk of articles that the logic doesnt work on. The projects have the right to decide not to change to the standard format but I agree that the AWB developers should have to program in exceptions if one or 2 projects out of over 1650 want to do their own thing. If they want to take advantage of the logic that every other project is using then they can change IMO.
2. Its still confusing when you have one or 2 projects that are different. Especially for beginners or non editors who may just be leaving a commment on the talk page or looking for a project or something that might help them "fix" whatever problem the page may have.
3. Its hard for the programmers of apps and scripts such as AWB to program all the thousands of variations of redirects. Is it possible, yes but you start getting diminishing returns as you add more and more code to compensate for it, it takes more time to program it and maintain it, more time and system resources for the apps to scan through the code and the article, etc. The apps and scripts dont look for redirects, they change what they see.
4. Although I disagree on this I left some other comments with my concerns on Rich's page about the list and some things I noticed. --
   talk
   ) 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's only three exceptions to write in. Before the giant standardization push it was an issue because there were many. But now it's manageable (imo). –xeno^talk 15:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Theres actually 4 plus redirects and its still a bad precedent. If we make the exception for these 3 or 4 then a year from now we'll have 50 or 100 or more. I still agree with my original assessment. Theres no requirement for them to follow the standard but if they want to be able to use the functionality of the automated tools then they need too. As long as they can live without the tools their fine. When they want to use the tools they know what they need to do. Not trying to twist there arm or hold them hostage by the tool or anything else. Its there decision to make. --

talk

) 16:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to push this or go into diffs in a big way because this is coming from more than one long thread on

It's unfortunate that you don't want to provide diffs, because I've reviewed my recent comments at BN and stand by them, and I don't see any "near venomous" or "highly opinionated rejections of certain editors", but I do see me criticizing inappropriate canvassing and battleground behaviour. When you supported me at RfB, you were supporting someone who was willing to speak their mind and uphold Wikipedia's policies and guidelines even if it means speaking out against popular editors with friends willing to defend them at all costs. Hans is probably right though, I should've just kept quiet rather than enabling martyrdom. I'd managed to stay out of the climate change fracas to this point, but once it turned up on my doorstep at BN I wasn't just going to sit on my hands and let the battle be taken up in a new arena at RFA. To maintain the integrity of the process, I'm willing to accept that I may attract the attention of highly-vocal critics and consider that a fair tradeoff. See [9] for how this should have been handled by the participants. –xeno^talk 15:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am very conscious of how things should be handled and I think the arbs handled the CC case very very badly. I think it is not your job to individually take this up at RfA. Please don't react against good editors because you percieve them to be tainted or turning up on your doorstep trying to push their views. Many of the editors on both sides of the CC issue have far more knowledge of and good will towards wikipedia than most other editors at RfA and should be heard. They are certainly not all mindless POV pushers as you and arbcom seem to have decided.

talk

) 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've decided no such thing. I've simply called things as I saw them in the instant case (haven't looked at the CC-case in depth, except to note that most of the editors claiming that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the participants have received similar sanctions). If you have an issue with the way the CC-case was handled, then RFA/BN is not the venue to hash that out. –xeno^talk 16:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I left a comment on Rich's talk page about the Wikiproject banner list that might interest you. --

Thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 15:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been fully protected for four years I think. Why don't people try lowering the protection to semi. The main page on meta-wiki is semi-protected? Inka⁸⁸⁸ 05:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think this is a good idea. Meta gets a fraction of the traffic that en.wiki does. –xeno^talk 15:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What about semi with level 2 PC protection so only reviewers can accept the page. I've never seen a reviewer vandalize a page. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 20:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the point? The mainpage very rarely needs to be edited. Editprotected requests should work fine. Risk outweighs the reward (it's very easy to get +reviewer). –xeno^talk 20:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to let as many people as possible edit a page. I also think it would be a good idea to give it another try, if it does not work go back to full protection. A lot of people watch the page so any vandalism would be quickly reverted. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 21:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What needs to be edited on the page? –xeno^talk 21:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing right now. All I'm saying is that it should be available to more people than just admins. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 21:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any admin (who wanted to hang on to their tools) would unprotect the main page. The potential for massive disruption is too high, and the benefit is negligible to non-existent. –xeno^talk 21:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd like to ask you what is my status with usurpation request. I tried to log in but it's not working correctly, did you already usurp this nickname for me? Thank you for reply, regards --Jowe70 (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ooops - try again - I forgot to carry it out =). Cheers, –xeno^talk 14:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

For the

Post to the BRFA with a link to the edits and mention the trial is complete. –xeno^talk 21:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. It won't be done until a week, incase you're wondering.

talk

) 19:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked a change you made to this template. It was causing an odd output (looked like this). However, I know next to nothing about templates, so if I broke something, please let me know. Thanks! TNXMan 16:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, thanks for looking out. –xeno^talk 18:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I am approved for ACC access, can I please get the AccountCreator Permission so I can deal with those requests too? Thank you  JoeGazz  ▲  20:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the right is granted after you've come up against the account creation throttle (it's not needed to handle account creation unless you are creating more than six per day). Things may have changed since I last granted it though, feel free to apply at

WP:PERM/ACC if necessary. –xeno^talk

04:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I updated some more of the logic for the WikiProject Banner cleanup here. A summery of some of the changes:

1. More projects added
2. Some projects disabled that didn't have any redirects
3. disabled some that dont appear to be valid.
4. Added some other talk related templates.

I am continuing to cruise through them but please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. --

Thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 04:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page fixes expanded in AWB

You are probably interested to know that AWB rev 7415 does the following interesting things:

• Talk page genfixes: Move WPBiography above any WikiProject templates per
  WP:TPL
  when |living=yes (en-wiki only)
• Talk page genfixes: Move any other WikiProjects into WikiProjectBannerShell
• Talk page genfixes now done in category talk and book talk too
• WPBiography: remove diacritics from |listas= parameter in {{
  WPBiography
  }}
• Kingbotk AWB Plugin 2.3.1.1:
  • Disactivated set placement fixes (now done by general fixes)

Hopefully we have now a less buggy plugin. Further implementation delays due to real life engagements. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool. If my wishlist gets close enough to being completely fulfilled, I might just be able to start botrunnin' again! –xeno^talk 14:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I 'll inform you when this time comes. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, thought I would message you to avoid clogging up

It's possible, but in general we try not to create SUL conflicts with existing accounts on sister projects. –xeno^talk 18:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know. Will cross that bridge once I've managed to switch over on all wikis which could take a while. It may well be that by that time the Hungarian user will have become inactive, which could make life easier. Thanks for the help.

talk

) 19:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Any chance you might be interested in running for arbcom? - jc37 02:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a dreadful job, so it really depends on whether the field of candidates yields a suitable number to offer the community a good selection. If not, I will offer to serve. –xeno^talk 18:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well at least you seem to be fairly fore-warned of what to expect (lol)

Please let me know if you decide to : ) - jc37 19:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Against my better judgment: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates#Xeno. –xeno^talk 04:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd have never guessed you were a masochist. Your pain is our gain, I suppose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad to have you join the party :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You crazy Canuck!!
Thanks though. Maybe I can find 11 folks to support in good conscience after all. Amalthea 10:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope I can as well - so I can oppose mine ;> –xeno^talk 14:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Arbcom Elections

Dear Xeno, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the

Thanks, I had forgotten something =). –xeno^talk 14:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them as do the majority of other candidates). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. (please answer here, I'll see it, and it keeps things together better) ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Shucks! I was hoping you might not notice my candidacy, sitting all the way at the bottom ;> I'll go ahead and draft up the answers. Thanks, –xeno^talk 18:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry bout that! Added them to your page. ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Request

Xeno, if you wouldn't mind, could you add language to your nomination statement to the effect of "I have never edited Wikipedia with an account other than those listed here", or whatever is appropriate to your situation? It would also be good to specify whether you have had other accounts disclosed only to ArbCom, as the statement is currently ambiguous about this. I am asking all the candidates to make sure their account disclosure is full and categorical. Cheers, Skomorokh 12:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

See [10]. Thanks, –xeno^talk 13:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, let me clarify what was meant. You don't need to publicly disclose either the names or the character of accounts for which you have for valid privacy concerns disclosed to ArbCom, but your statement should state how many of those accounts there are, should explicitly name any accounts not disclosed to ArbCom, and should state that you have never edited from any other account. Skomorokh 13:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Should be sorted now. –xeno^talk 14:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not quite; it needs to be a categorical statement that rules out the possibility that you have used accounts that are disclosed neither publicly nor to ArbCom. I'm not even sure what you mean by the current disclosure in your statement, but let me suggest something along these lines: "I have used alternate accounts, which are listed here. I have also edited from x other accounts, which for privacy reasons I have disclosed only to ArbCom. Aside from these, I have never edited Wikipedia from another account."

The whole point is that the statement should ensure that either all of the candidates accounts are known to either the community or ArbCom, or that the candidate is lying. Almost all the other candidates have appropriate disclosures (key words: "never", "only"), and I really don't want to have to delist candidates over phraseology. Best, Skomorokh 14:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Delisting my candidacy would be doing me a favour. But I've gone ahead and added the statement you suggested. –xeno^talk 15:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate it, and who knows, you might get lucky and not get elected ;) Skomorokh 16:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have horrible luck. =] –xeno^talk 16:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that you are the only bureaucrat here on enwiki that reviews and completes/denies usurpation requests. That's pretty awesome, seems like it could get annoying at times!

Some of the others poke their head in from time to time, but I think they see that I'm on top of it and leave me to it =] Thanks for the kind words! –xeno^talk 20:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer wishes you a Happy Thanksgiving and hopes your day is full of good times, good food, good family, good football, a good parade and a good nap...then shopping tomorrow. :) Have a Great Day! :) Spread the joy of Thanksgiving by adding {{subst:HappyThanksgiving}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a WONDERFUL thanksgiving! Thanks for all the work at the usurptions! You really a true help all over.  JoeGazz  ▲  13:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• You're both about a month late, but thanks =) Enjoy your Thanksgivings! –xeno^talk 14:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a backlog at MfD. I'm working on it a bit.

But would you look over the ones that involve possible history merges? (Determine if appropriate, etc.) There are more than a few.

(This is where I say something nice about the great work you did at Darth Vader, and hope that it helps motivate you to help out (grin))

Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 07:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Did someone beat me to them? I don't see any open & expired ones that talk about merging? –xeno^talk 13:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. It looks like Courcelles beat you to it. After the last closure I did, I noticed Courcelles seemed to be working from the top, so I guess we kinda met in the middle. - jc37 16:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't sweat it =) –xeno^talk 16:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I voted for you, silly goose. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Now why would you go and do something silly like that? *I* didn't even vote for me! =) –xeno^talk 14:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, given your involvement with Talk:Lincoln/Archive 3#Removal of project designation, the slow edit war at Talk:Plymouth (disambiguation) should "interest" you. (see [11]), the fact he has removed the one he dislikes and another is even more disconcerting imo.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - if a member of the project put the tag, it should remain. –xeno^talk 14:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello User:Xeno last year i created an account call User:Cameron E. Tyler and i would like to get my user name changed becouse of user name privacy. but anyway i was lazy and i did not wanted to spend about 10 mins to get a name and i would like to change my user name to User:TGHF10 and please reply if you can't change my user name tell me what i should to thank you. —Preceding

•  Done –xeno^talk 14:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, my work computer seems to do it almost randomly. About the fifth time this has happened (even now I am being especially careful :(). Thanks for catching it! --

# (del/undel) 15:38, 11 November 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Talk:Belle Isle Park Raceway (Cleanup talk page templates and add WPUS banner using AWB)
# (del/undel) 15:36, 11 November 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Talk:Alien autopsy (band) (Cleanup talk page templates and add WPUS banner using AWB)
# (del/undel) 15:36, 11 November 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Talk:Absinthe Junk (Cleanup talk page templates and add WPUS banner using AWB)