User talk:Pathoschild/Archives/2006-02

Wikipedia

Requests for administrator intervention

POV edits by 69.22.98.162

I've noticed a continuing pattern of POV edits such as this [[1]] being made by user 69.22.198.62, who has been blocked several times previously for edits to Albert Einstein and a continuing edit war on Henri Poincare. Since this seemingly static user (if you check the contribution history) seems to continually edit these articles in a non cooperative way despite previous administrative action, I'm wondering if a block of that IP address's ability to edit at least the Einstein article might be appropriate. Ben Kidwell 00:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Alert moved to Vandalism in progress. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 02:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for investigation

I don't know what powers admins can have, but please could you have a look at User:Infinity0/Vandal_report (which I've already listed in WP:AIV) and see if you can get any further. If I'm right, then this user is a particularly nasty vandal who needs to be stopped. Thanks for your time. Infinity0 ^talk 00:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The report in question is quoted below.

I believe these are the same person:

• Special:Contributions/80.138.168.54
• Special:Contributions/80.138.193.56
• Special:Contributions/80.138.192.206
• Special:Contributions/80.138.134.141
• Special:Contributions/80.138.174.234
• Special:Contributions/80.138.167.218
• Special:Contributions/Mr_Phil (User_talk:Mr_Phil has admitted he is "HerrPhilip", who was banned from the German wikipedia.)

This user(s) has added content to Asian fetish, Special Relativity, Mongoloid, Virago (which has been protected due to his vandalism) with dubious sources, original research, and unverified information. When I attempt to remove the content, the user(s) accuse me of vandalism. When "backed up", the content is claimed to originate from "Rainer Knußmann":

[2] [3]

A search for Rainer Knußmann comes up with 705 results. Also, a link through his name is given in Asian fetish to [4] where his name is in RED. I have not the patience to check the history of that German page, but I am sure you will find that the one who inserted that entry is from one of the IPs, or a similar one, to the above. Even if "Rainer Knußmann" is a real person, he is not major enough to justify all the content this user has been adding under his name.

Either this user is Rainer Knußmann, wanting to make himself sound more prominent, or he is a consistent vandal (He seems to claim he has been a vandal since 2001) who has come up with seemingly legitimate content. Please investigate further.

I sought help from lightdarkness for translation. Mr_Phil's talk page holds a discussion in German between himself and two of the IP addresses in question, which indicates that they're adding the information to the English Wikipedia because it was controversial on the German Wikipedia. Although it seems that they're collaborating, they do not appear to be direct sockpuppets. This collaboration is not in itself indication of bad faith.

Although there are few Google hits, lightdarkness assures me that the Google results appear to be relevant. The source is a contributor to the journal Collegium Antropologicum, which recieves 15,500 Google hits; whether or not this qualifies as a sufficient source is questionable. If other reputable sources do not support the additions, it is advisable that the edits be reverted and the users invited to discuss.

Please report specific vandalism at Administrator intervention against vandalism or three-revert rule violations on the Administrators' noticeboard. Whether the content itself belongs is a question for the dispute resolution process, unless there is clear evidence that it does not belong. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the "conversation" on his talk page might be a set-up. My main concern is his vicious aggression at adding content "by Rainer Knußmann" to any article and section he finds and deems relevant. If the added content is encyclopedic, then it should be sourced using a more well-known person. Infinity0 ^talk 13:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we please get an sprotected tag put on the Asian fetish talk page? Even the talk page has gotten to a ridiculous point. --Wzhao553 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection of a talk page is only done in extreme circumstances, as it prevents some users from discussing. The level of vandalism there remains manageable. If anonymous users are vandalising the page, please see Administrator intervention against vandalism. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi. Not sure if you're still here, but you're the only admin I've bumped into this morning and the list is really getting out of hand at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Since this list is pretty time-sensitive, do you think you could take a look at the list, or if you're busy maybe you know of another admin online right now? Thanks very much. Kafziel 15:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 18:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion regarding a protected page

Hi,

I see that you are the one who protected the article on Asian Fetish. I tried to add content to the discussion page for that article to explain how the article needs to be improved. My remarks were immediately archived by one of the debate participants. Am I missing something or is that an egregious abuse of the archiving process? 金 (Kim) 17:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The comment has been restored with a request that users be careful when archiving comments. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 17:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote counting

Hi, please allow me to pass the final vote-counting and decision for the Physical anthropology section of Asian fetish on to you. Thanks in advance. --Wzhao553 05:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Responses to admininistrator intervention

Updating list of protected pages

Hi, I noticed that you protected the page Belarusian language. In future, would you please put list any pages protected on Wikipedia:Protected_page. Thanks. novacatz 07:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

'ello

Thanks for your assistance on IRC : )

Regards, Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 07:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello there

You will be hearing from my attorney soon, Pathoschild. --NeilOrd30 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 00:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice response on Asian Fetish

Nice response on Asian fetish, kudos. Ronabop 16:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 19:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Responses to editor actions

Re: Your moving of WikiProject UW

You moved the WikiProject on user warnings this morning, but it seems you didn't check to make sure it went well. I spent the last hour moving pages, updating links, and deleting redirects to fix all the redlinks the move engendered. No doubt you meant well, and the standardised capitalisation is indeed an improvement, but I suggest you pay a little more attention to the results of your actions henceforth. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 15:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Have a cookie for all your hard work!

Sorry about all the hard work I put you through. I did fix a few redirects though but thanks anyway for fixing the rest! --Thorpe | talk 21:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cookie! :D // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Question...

Any reason you felt the need to indent my comments like that??? [5] --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I was edit conflicted with another user, and in the resulting confusion I momentarily posted below your comment and integrated it to the list so that it wouldn't break the numbering on my comment. I realised my mistake a moment later, so I didn't think to check the oppose section when I previewed. Feel free to unindent, it was purely unintentional. //Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 01:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't worried, just didn't know why you had done it. No harm. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia:Blocked_imposters/template

I've been looking at uncategorized categories, and I came across this one and can't figure out for the life of me what it's for. Is there some parent cat it can be put in at least? -- SCZenz 08:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a template used by :Category:Wikipedia:Blocked_imposters. If you feel it necessary, you could move it to it's talk page and update the subcategory pages. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 13:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the template with its category and deleted the template page. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 14:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

S/Wnote

Hi. I would very much appreciate your comments on the issues I have raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_user_warnings#S/Wnote.--Srleffler 02:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently on wikibreak and abstaining from non-minor edits. Engaging in discussion would defy the purpose of the wikibreak. If you feel that it should be deleted, I will not oppose a TFD nomination; we'll see what the community decides. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 02:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Main article

What are you doing? You just made a lot of pages VERY ugly. Read dbenbenn's proposal on Template talk:Main#Two separate templates. -- Netoholic @ 21:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologise; it seems I responded with insufficient research. However, please leave a note on the talk page when making such a change. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 21:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for the Green/Black effect, I noticed you took the time to convert the wikilinks. Thx again, —This user has left wikipedia 17:42 2006-01-26

You're welcome. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 07:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Test-n and Test

Good job :) I'd love to apply that template to the rest of the tests, but I cannot edit the protected pages. Will you get to it eventually, or will I have to make an early RfA :) Thanks, -- Avi 00:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm waiting to see if anyone opposes the changes first. If all goes well, I'll do it to the rest of the templates within a day or two. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Copy of Test/Talk, but you should note the fact that the parameter passed now must be the wikied version (with brackets), as opposed to plain, on the templates page in a noinclude or the like, so people would know. Thanks -- Avi 01:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That 'feature' alone seems like reason enough to revert this change. If you're going to do this, you should ensure that the "user interface" remains exactly the same. --Srleffler 01:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to test-n broke the template {{test1-n}}, because it created a double redirect. I fixed this. Don't forget to check for double redirects when you do the rest of the templates.--Srleffler 01:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no pressing need to maintain the usage; no vandal will die because they can't access their latest target in a single click. "Thank you for your vandalism to Toyota" works just as well as "Thank you for your vandalism to Toyota." // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 01:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you've reverted the whole thing. Thanks for trying, anyway. It was a nice attempt to merge the templates with simple code. My preference for the link is more about grammar and clarity. "This message concerns the page Amplitude." is much clearer than "This message concerns Amplitude.", which could be confusing especially if the message is left on an IP talk page, and is read by someone other than the vandal. I wouldn't have been as opposed to not having the auto-link functionality in the expanded {{test}}, but changing the functionality of an existing template just to save a few bytes of storage somewhere doesn't seem worth it.--Srleffler 02:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Betacommand

He's confirmed now :P--Shanel 05:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

They're still on the banned list; has Essjay looked at the request? // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 05:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, phoenixoverride is confirmed.--Shanel 06:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User page design

New user page

Hey, is :Image:Pathoschild-newpage.png how your how your user page is intended to look like? —Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 02:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I included the toolbox links one couldn't use on the talk page, just in case users wanted to use them. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 02:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm doesn't appear to affect classic so much —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geni (talk • contribs) 05:16, February 13, 2006.

It's just recently implemented, I'm tweaking it. ;) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 05:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edits to my user page

Please don't intentionally break my user page's design. Since the hidden links are available in the content or on the talk page, accessibility is not much impaired. Familiarity is irrelevant on a user page. If you have any particular reasons you feel that the design is improper, please discuss on my talk page. Thanks. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 05:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

replied on my talk. —Charles P._(Mirv) 05:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

the hidden links are available in the content or on the talk page—in fact, your layout wipes the contributions, block, e-mail, printable, and permalink links from the toolbox; the history, watch, and move tabs are broken, as are the admin links (protect and delete) and the added admin tabs (block, blocklog) that I and numerous other users add with personal .js files. All the links in the upper right are inaccessible: links to the reader's userpage, talk page, preferences, watchlist, and contributions are gone, as is the logout. Your layout breaks basic site functions in ways that are difficult to get around; this would be a problem in any other page in any other namespace, and it is my opinion that the broad latitude extended to userpages does not cover this. But I won't revert it; let's solicit other opinions in a more public forum. —Charles P._(Mirv) 05:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of those links are available on the talk page, which can be accessed by clicking "talk page" in the content. Most of what's left is useless on the userpage; you have no reason to ever move the page, it should only be deleted in extreme circumstances, and I personally oppose protection of my user page. Those links that aren't accessible on the talk page were added to the content; if you can think of any that I've missed, feel free to point them out. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 05:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Cologne Blue

Just a note to say that your user page and talk page looks rather strange when using the Cologne Blue skin. I have screenshots of your user page and your talk page. (I can upload these here, but I don't think it's necessary). For reference, here's how Cologne Blue usually looks: :m:Image:Colognebluess.png. — Jeff | (talk) | 03:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll be changing the design soon, and the new one won't be as odd. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 19:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The new user page design is quite pleasing and looks just fine in Cologne Blue. I also wanted to say (at the risk of upsetting your careful talk-page organization scheme) that the practicality and fair-mindedness of your proposal has been largely what's missing from the polemic debates on the issue. I wanted to express my gratitude, as that (the equitable and reasonable nature and intent of your proposal) paired with the sentiment added to your user page has dissuaded me from leaving the project—something I'd seriously contemplated doing in the next few days. I'm not sure that world you refer to still exists (or if it ever did), but I'm more inclined to give it a chance now than I have been in recent months. — Jeff | (talk) | 06:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your user page

Please don't intentionally break my user page's design. Since the hidden links are available in the content or on the talk page, accessibility is not much impaired. Familiarity is irrelevant on a user page. If you have any particular reasons you feel that the design is improper, please discuss on my talk page. Thanks. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 03:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't breaking your page, I was fixing it. It's broken the way it is now. It hides lots of useful user interface elements and doesn't work at all in skins other than Monobook. You're putting form above function and it's not a good end result. --Cyde Weys 04:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In what way does function terribly matter on a user page, where most necessary elements are available elsewhere? Regardless, I'll change my user page within a day or two in a way that doesn't impede your upload file link. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 08:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Functionality matters the same on a user page as it does everywhere else. A lot of functionality is browsing functionality that is independent from the userpage. For example, I can usually go to any page I wish from any page ... except for your userpage, which covers up a lot of essential interface elements. You've even covered up the links to my own userpage and talk page, as well as all of the links in the toolbox to stuff like New Pages, AFD, Recent IP Edits, Related Changes, E-mail this user, etc. You can blank the text area starting from the page text going down and right, but you shouldn't be blanking over the interface toolbox, tabs, or userbar. I've included two descriptive photographs to make this perfectly clear. Thank you for understanding.

• Pathoschild's user page
  Pathoschild's user page
• A normal user page
  A normal user page

--Cyde Weys 17:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

New userpage

I like the new userpage. It work!  :-p --Cyde Weys 04:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Spam or malicious comments

wrong move ---- ill be watching you now

I've been following your contributions, and I want you to know I think you've pulled a lot of wrong moves here on Wikipedia. You boot people off left and right when they disagree with you. It's downright inappropriate. You're behavior is not helpful at all to this community. I want to let you know I'll have you on my watchlist and will be watching your every edit and contribution. And I'm going to be there to revert any untruth you put here. Your reign here bullying people was ridiculous but now it's over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GreatBarrington (talk • contribs) .

Kind of out of the blue from a new user right? On the other hand, coming from the user aka Theblacklarl (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA), it might not be such a surprise. David D. (Talk) 06:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION ADMINISTRATORS

Please look over this user's edits and contributions. A thorough check will make it clear that this user is deserving of being kicked out of Wikipedia all together. -------GB 13:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm onto you! :P--Shanel 20:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox substitution

Substitute Template:User-AmE-0?

Since this was speedied, I wondered if you could subst the syntax into pages that still link there. I copied the syntax to User:Celestianpower/User AmE-0. You can find the list of places it still links to here. I hear this is uncontriversial. Thanks! --Celestianpower ^háblame 23:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You've been susbstituting the wrong template, and I don't appreciate you messing with my page. Jooler 00:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the deleted version with the substituted version, I see no perceivable difference. However, it's your user page; you're free to revert or change the edit. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 00:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I just undid your edit to GrahamUK's page; his template was User AmE-0 which was not deleted. Your edit substituted in the deleted template User-AmE-0 instead. I don't know what's going on with these templates, but since your substituted test was quite different text than the replaced text, I reverted. You may want to check that you have not made this mistake on other pages. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 00:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the mistake; I'll fix the search string and check my other changes. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 00:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for substituting it on my userpage. Brian | (Talk) 02:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 02:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

All done; it took a while because I was multitasking. Note that userboxes on a transcluded subpage with <noinclude> syntax can't be found by the bot, and weren't affected. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work; grandfathering

Noticed you are retrieving deleted userboxes and inlining them. I think this is excellent work. Did you see my Grandfathering proposal on wikien-l?

I welcome Jimbo's forthright statement that "political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project", and his thoughtful and considerate request that editors contemplate helping to reduce the userbox culture by simply "removing your political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars."

I know this is going to meet resistance, so I'm trying to think of a way in which those who think that expressing their opinions on their userpages helps wikipedia and have so far chosen to do so using userboxes, can be asked to do so in a way that doesn't contribute to the very divisive culture that has ground up specifically around userboxes.

I've come up with a suggestion as follows:

1. that if he disagrees with Jimbo's request, the user should instead consider using the subst command to place the content of the template directly into his userpage. This would reduce the "viral" transmission of userboxes somewhat and, for the user, it would have the benefit of divorcing the fate of parts of his userpage from the fate of individual userboxes--whether editing or deletion.

2. that having done this, he should take the opportunity to edit the text so that it more precisely expresses his individual views. In my opinion this would be more in keeping with the *good* effects of userboxes in enabling self-expression, while being more in keeping with the principle that Wikipedia is a wiki in which we edit content, and not a cookie-cutter website in which we reduce our complex beliefs as individuals into regimented blocs that serve no purpose but to emphasize the cultural divisions.

I think of this as "grandfathering". Ultimately we should be able to foster a benign culture of fearless expression of our editorial biases, without enabling the subversion of our relatively fragile neutrality principle by alliances between single-issue campaigners--however justifiable they may feel this subversion to be.

I see this as the way forward and I think your work, what I've seen of it, is compatible with this. --Tony Sidaway 00:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Substituted user boxes become, essentially, another part of the user's page and protected by the unofficial freedom of POV user pages enjoy. Although I read your proposal on the mailing list, I have a tendency to skim titles, so I must have missed any responses to it. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 00:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What's going on?

Eh What did you do to my userpage? I just went there and lots of my templates are gone, and it says you edited it, so what's going on here? I'm pretty new to Wikipedia so I don't really understand everything that goes on here, but I would like an explanation.--Hibernian 07:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's a major dispute about "userboxes", which is the type of templates you're using. Many editors believe that most or all of these should be deleted, and many others believe that they shouldn't. A recent change implemented by Jimbo Wales is a new criteria for speedy deletion that allows "divisive or inflammatory" templates to be deleted. Many of the templates on your user page were deleted under this provision. For more information on the dispute, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes, User talk:Jimbo Wales/Userboxes, and Wikipedia:Userboxes.

My edit to your page restored one such userbox by replacing the deleted template with the code. Compare before and after my edit; notice that "Template:User against fox hunting" is changed back into the userbox. If you'd like to fix these, you can place the code directly onto the page. See User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes for a list that I'm currently building. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 07:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Ok so you were actually trying to preserve the userboxes, I assumed you must have been the one who removed them or something, in that case thanks. By the way is there any way to get them back or are they gone forever?--Hibernian 03:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm substituting deleted userboxes on user pages at the moment. Since many of the templates on your user page weren't known to me at the time, they weren't fixed. My list is constantly expanding, so they'll be fixed next time I come across your page. If you'd like to fix it yourself, you can get the code for most or all of them from User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes. If there's any I'm missing, feel free to leave me a message and I'll add them. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 03:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Substing

Hi, I've only just started to become immersed in the whole userbox issue after finding some of my userboxes being deleted so i'm not totally clue'd up on all aspects. I use predominantly template userboxes, so to protect against deletion do i have to place subst: before each one to plant it on my userpage so that if the template is deleted it will still be there? have I got that right? Also I have noticed another one disappear today and cannot find any discussion on it for - "User antireligion", I take it this one has just been speedy deleted?. -- Death Eater Dan 09:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Using a template as {{subst:userbox}} will place the code on your page so that it won't be affected by deletion. {{user antireligion}} was speedied, and I just added it to my substitution list a few minutes ago. Feel free to take the code from User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes, or hold tight and I'll be along to fix it soon. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 09:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your help. I'm quite attached to my user boxes now (although I arguably now have too many :) I think they are a good and oft times humerous brief insight into wikipedians as people not just faceless contributors. Death Eater Dan 11:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your userbox project

I have completed the subst'ing of pages linking to Template:User antimonarchist--Adam ^(talk) 14:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 19:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

"Bad EU"

I tank you for having substituted that template upon my "user-page" with the image of it, sir.--Anglius 22:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 09:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Re userbox substitution on my userboxes page. Thank you. - nathanrdotcom ^{Talk | Contrib} 01:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 02:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Your efforts

Thanks so much for your efforts at substitution of deleted userboxes. Recently Doc glasgow speedily deleted a bunch of user boxes I had on my page, messing up my whole format...I can't seem to be able to look at the history in order to copy the script to my page...how do I do this? Thanks in advance. bcatt 05:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Deleted history is only visible to administrators; following are the userboxes you're missing; feel free to insert them into your user page. [Note: The content of this list was omitted when copied from User talk:Bcatt for simplicity.]

Template name	Template	code
{{User EFF}}	[-]	[-]
{{User POV userbox}}	[-]	[-]
{{User allboxes}}	[-]	[-]
{{User ape-equality}}	[-]	[-]
{{User cannabis}}	[-]	[-]
{{User death-expand}}	[-]	[-]
{{User eugenics-voluntary}}	[-]	[-]
{{User gun control}}	[-]	[-]
{{User incl}}	[-]	[-]
{{User life and choice}}	[-]	[-]

// Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 06:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow

That was fast! Thanks a ton...here's a nice chocolate chip cookie for your efforts (it's fresh baked too!).

bcatt 06:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Thanks for the cookie! :D // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 06:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for substituting the deleted :Template:User allboxes on my user page. It is good to find that someone is actually trying to solve this mess. Keep up the good work.--Wedian 17:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're welcome. :) // 23:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I hereby wish to thank you for your continuous efforts in protecting our templates from those gutless vandals who get their sick kicks off removing them. May the Force be with you ! -Voievod 20:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure those users deleting userboxes are acting in good faith. Nevertheless, you're welcome. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much

Thank you very, very much for the substitution of the deleted userboxes on my userbox page. --Think Fast 00:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 00:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thinking Outside the (User)Box Award

	The Thinking Outside the (User)Box Award
	You are hereby given this award in recognition of your generous efforts to subst deleted userboxes on user pages, to propose a policy that is both practical and fair to all parties, and to reduce the overall conflict over this contentious issue. — Jeff | (talk) | 03:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 06:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for compiling userboxes

Thanks for compiling lots of the deleted userboxes, I think you deserve all the thanks you are getting and more. Also, how do you go about adding more, because I saw someone created some templates that will soon be deleted? The Ungovernable Force 04:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. If the templates haven't been deleted yet, you can substitute them onto your userpage by using {{subst:userbox name}}. If they've been deleted, only an administrator can retrieve the code. If you have some templates you'd like added, feel free to leave me a message with the list and I'll add them myself. But remember that this isn't really a collection of userboxes, and that they'll be deleted once they've been subst'd. If you'd like to make your own collection of non-template userboxes, feel free to use this code. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 06:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually have been transfering mine to code. And I am surprised to see that the userboxes that the person created are still up, probably because they haven't been posted on the userbox page. One of them is a recreation of one I made yesterday and posted, which was deleted by MarkSweep in less than 5 minutes. I just wanted them on here so others could find the code if they get deleted. But yeah, thanks again. The Ungovernable Force 07:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

thank you very much

thank you very much for substituting the EU template on my userpage. I appreciate it. What is going on here, anyway? XYaAsehShalomX 14:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Concerning what's going on, this is a comment I posted in response to a similar question:

Unfortunately, there's a major dispute about "userboxes", which is the type of templates you're using. Many editors believe that most or all of these should be deleted, and many others believe that they shouldn't. A recent change implemented by Jimbo Wales is a new criteria for speedy deletion that allows "divisive or inflammatory" templates to be deleted. Many of the templates on your user page were deleted under this provision. For more information on the dispute, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes, User talk:Jimbo Wales/Userboxes, and Wikipedia:Userboxes.

// Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 19:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I can understand why some userboxes would be deleted, since I saw the "against scientology" one a while back and i can see why someone might get offended by it. However, I don't think it should be banned to state your views in this way, - especially since there are loads of userboxes still there for people to put up which I don't particularly like ;) XYaAsehShalomX 17:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox javascript

You've probably noticed that I've been clearing the backlog on your userbox substitution project. I now have a fairly stable version of the user script I use available at User:Ilmari Karonen/userboxes.js. Feel free to link to or copy it. The current version only handles templates whose name begins with "User_" (though that would be fairly easy to change), but it beats the AWB solution in that it can look inside Babel-n metaboxes and (fake)subst those as needed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I've seen; thanks a lot for the help. I prefer the AutoWikiBrowser method for it's easy updating. Although the metabox issue is a problem, I think it's a minor one. On the other hand, help from users who don't have the AutoWikiBrowser would be appreciated, so feel free to add the script to the Userbox project page. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 00:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked the javascript so that the list of templates to subst is customizable. Meanwhile, feel free to update the default regexp at User:Ilmari Karonen/userboxes.js. I'll go get some sleep now, so I won't be around to do it myself. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The to-subst list should be cleared by tonight. Thanks a lot for the help! I'll update the regexp when I collect the next batch. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 03:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Substing userboxes

Please let me know if there's a way I can help to systematically subst userboxes. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 01:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, there is. If you know how to use the AutoWikiBrowser, you can use the settings on User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes. Ilmari Karonen (comment above) has written Javascript that does the same without the AutoWikiBrowser. Any help is welcome. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk)

Thanks (section 2)

Typical

While I'm blathering on endlessly about the problem, someone else is actually fixing it. This was the approach that I had suggested for userboxes, blythly unaware of it actually being done. Thanks for the good work. - brenneman^{T}{L} 22:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise, and you're welcome. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 01:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy

Yes indeed, something Aaron Brenneman and I agree about. It's nice to know that someone was working to fix the problem while others blathered. Excellent work! --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

You're a legend. :) --Closedmouth 00:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and welcome. :D // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 01:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ta

Hey, me bucko, ta for fixing the userboxes on my user page. Methinks WP's recent policy on deleting all political party related userboxes is as onsensical as deleting all religion related userboxes. You're our knight in refulgent glow. Cheers, MarkBeer 01:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 01:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for helping with the userboxes on my user page.. I have been trying to fix them to no avail. Your help is much appreciated. VincentGross 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

umm... thanks

umm... thanks... i don't know exactly what you did but thanks... user:SaintDante

My edit replaced broken templates with their code. For example, {{user antiparty}} would be replaced with this:

NO!	This user believes that all political parties are corrupt and/or powerless and are best avoided..

You're welcome. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 21:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

userbox fix thanks

Hey man, thanks for fixing the userboxes that were initially deleted. Wikipedia is getting way too stubborn on the policy on userboxes, but that's just my opinion. Anyway, thanks again! Thistheman 19:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 21:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar!

	Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar Award
	I, --M@rēino, award this Barnstar to Pathoschild for User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes, a project designed to reduce conflict in the highly emotional Wikipedia:Userboxes dispute.

Thanks a lot! XD // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 21:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox query

I generated a report of all userboxes, sorted by the number of times that they're transcluded in User: or User talk: space. [6] Tony Sidaway originally asked for it, but perhaps it would be helpful in some of your efforts. I'd guess around 40% of them are used by 2 or fewer users, which may or may not be useful info. We're discussing now, but it may be possible to more freely delete userboxes that have 0 users? --Interiot 20:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That tool will be extremely useful; thanks greatly. I see no reason not to delete most of the unused userboxes, as they don't contribute anything to Wikipedia or the community. On the other hand, I think that userboxes in the spirit of the original babel boxes, those that state an expertise or ability relevant to the encyclopedia, should be kept as they could be used to build up a good structure for a future structure of expertises and abilities. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 22:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've used this list to delete quite a few unused boxes (and rephrase a few that I thought could be useful). Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed policy

Your suggested policy

... is great. I would make the following suggestions:

1. In the userbox policy section, part 2, bullet 2, you list "abortion debates" as a usable category. I would think "history of abortion," perhaps, or "reproductivee philosophy," but "abortion debates" (and any other "debates" category) seems to be specifically and explicitly inviting argument. I would prefer the expertise boxes not include "I like arguing about X."
2. In the userbox policy section, part 2, bullet 3, you state that userboxes based in user space transcluded without substitution should be treated as templates pursuant to regulations in part A. Did you mean "B"? It seems subjecting them to A does not, in fact, put any restrictions on them whatsoever. If you did mean B, I would ask that it be made clear that the burden of substitution is on the user, and not the keeper of that template. A template in user space should not be deleted because someone using it misunderstands how to include it on their page. Instead, users who are transcluding without substitution should be informed that if their template is not substed, it will be deleted.
3. Under "Implementation", or somewhere, please explicitly say that this policy would freeze all deletions under T1. It's pretty clearly implied, but given the strife caused by current vagueness of policy, this being explicitly stated could do no harm.

If you integrate these changes or explain why they are unnecessary or counterproductive, you will have my unconditional endorsement of this policy. Regards, JDoorjam Talk 19:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your points, and have attempted to address them as such:

1. The example now instead reads "'user abortion' but not 'pro-life'", although someone specifically knowledgeable in abortion history could conceivably create a seperate template.
2. Principle A was cited in reference to the statement that "These should be limited only by the usual policies relevant to user pages, those regarding no personal attacks, civility, copyright, legal considerations, not bringing wikipedia into disrepute, no deliberate trolling, and the caveat that wikipedia is not a free webhost." However, Principle B is equally relevant and has been cited as well.
3. Concerning the freezing of speedy deletions under T1, that is implied and strongly desired. However, I lack the authority to make this binding. I'll ask Jimbo Wales to take a look and, if he supports it, that clause could be added for all templates created before this policy is accepted.

I hope the above changes are satisfactory; feel free to suggest any other improvements. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 21:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

They certainly are, and I will append my name to your growing list of supporters. Regards, JDoorjam Talk 22:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy

After discussion, a copy of the above policy has been placed at WP:UBP for discussion and modification. Thank you! --Tony Sidaway 05:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted, welcome. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

proposed policy opened for poll

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Oh my, it feels great to finally see eye to eye with somebody on policy. Again, thank you. I very much hope people will be able to get behind this. Your work is invaluable. Thank you. ... aa:talk 21:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for substitution

My deleted Userboxes

Hi, as you'll notice on my userpage, there are 6 blank boxes where my userboxes were previously. The reason they don't show as redlinks is because they link to protected deleted pages now. Therefore, I'm wondering if you will substitute those deleted userboxes please? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Shultz III 21:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

See [7]. (you may want to save to a file and open it up with an editor) --Interiot 21:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Shultz: I'll fix your user page in a day or two when I do the next wave of userboxes. Thanks for bringing those ones to my attention. :)

Interiot: Wow, thanks a lot. This will make the process infinitely simpler! // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The userboxes that were deleted on my page appear to be the following: {{user Bright}}, {{User Evolution}}, {{User religion flying spaghetti monster not really}}. However, several of the boxes that are currently there will also get deleted under the proposed policy. Is there a way that you can protect them? I still don't understand why you and I are being forced to this trouble and inconvenience over a non-issue, i.e. I fail to see why it was necessary to delete the above templates in the first place - but thanks for your readiness to help. :) Metamagician3000 23:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a way to protect them using the syntax {{subst:user boxname}}. I'm converting a comprehensive list of userboxes provided by Interiot above to a more readable format. When I'm done, I'll go fix your userpage and protect your templates. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your trouble. Metamagician3000 01:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for Substitution

A number of the userboxes listed on your project page to be substituted have not actually been deleted (e.g., Template:User EFF, Template:User Anti-ACLU, Template:User_independent_Kosovo, Template:User_Israel, etc.). This means that, in addition to restoring broken user pages, the AWB is also unnecessarily substituting existing userboxes. And while I'm sure that essentially everyone appreciates having their broken userboxes fixed, it is not unreasonable to believe that most people would rather not have their undeleted userboxes substituted arbitrarily. So my question is, what is the criteria being used for inclusion on your substitution list? It is not, as you seem to suggest, simply that the userboxes have been deleted. - Nellis 02:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The criteria is speedy deletion. A very small percentage of the templates on the list were later undeleted and put through the template deletion process instead, and those are not substituted. Unfortunately, a few of those have already been done. However, I'm working on code that will convert the ugly HTML into the much simpler {{userbox}} (see User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Regex); that should help with the main issue with simple substitution. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 03:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ping

You have a reply. --Gmaxwell 05:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:VIP

A couple questions about how to handle WP:VIP.

1. Should an article be listed in the archives under the month the alert was filed, or the month the alert was removed?
2. Would you mind if I went ahead and created a February archive?
3. With the IP address alerts that have been posted all over the place over there, I'm not sure what action most of them need to take. If I look at it, and determine a block is not necessary, does that mean just remove it? Or should there be another option?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mo0 (talk • contribs) 08:11, February 4, 2006.

Hey. Alerts are archived to the current date at the time of archival; feel free to create the February archive to do so. If you judge that no action need be taken on an alert, just archive them as such. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 08:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

IRC username

• In case it isn't obvious, this discussion is meant as humour.

This user (Benon) has been identified as an impostor of pgk, and therefore has been blocked indefinitely. See block log

 ;) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 11:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

hahaha very funny pathos Benon 11:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks,Benon 11:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

User Page award

Congratulations, Pathoschild/Archives/2006-02! Your user page has been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Award! Five judges will look over your user page and award it 1-10 points in four categories:

• Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
• Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
• Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
• General niceness: at the judges' discretion

But first, you must be chosen as a finalist. If your user page is chosen as one of the five finalists, you'll have the chance to win an award created just for having a great user page!

More information can be found on this page.

smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice eye picture

It looks rather good Sceptre ^(Talk) 21:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Imposter categories

Hey, Lightdarkness made his own subcat, but instead of being listed under "L" he's in with the "other," so to speak. Do you know what's up?--Shanel 02:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem was caused by a minor change to the master template; 'tis fixed. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 03:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Bored

I'm a little confused at a few of your recent edits. You removed the vandal 'logos' (for lack of better word) from various Vandalism in progress pages, such as this edit to MARMOT's page. Your reasoning for this was "lets not glorify vandals", which I agree with. However, you then added a vandal 'logo' to {{NCV}} in this edit. It seems to me that what is vandal-glorifying on one page is certainly vandal-glorifying on hundreds of user pages. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 17:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, how are you doing? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Rather bored as well. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 19:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Awww... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A Western Sahara-related vote

===>Here Make your voice heard. Vote or die. And all that. -Justin (koavf), talk 20:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's day!

No misanthropy for you today good sir! Happy Valentine's day!--Shanel 03:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Valentines Day is a day of black cynicism and misanthropy, of slavering greed and lust intermingling. But... happy Valentines Day! :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy valentines day ;) — FireFox • T • 10:37, 14 February 2006

User:Tawker wishes you a happy and fun Valentines Day after all, it's childish :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tawker (talk • contribs) 06:10, February 14, 2006.

AWB source

Hi, you asked a while ago about the AWB source code, it is now open source, I am still getting the hang of cvs, but you should be able to download the source here. Martin 11:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks a lot. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 13:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace" code

Hi! I am a relatively new Wikipedian, and just today attempted to use a Vandal-warning template from the entry Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Detail_of_warnings. I had trouble with a template that allows one to add the Article name. It looks like the reason for it is because of a double "||" in the code. Someone else had noted it on the talk page, and I added a comment, but no one's responded so far. Then I decided to see if I could track down where the double || originated and it looks like its from your cleanup in this revision. I don't want to touch it because technical stuff like that intimidates me. Is there any way you could take a look at what the problem is? Thanks so very much. dfg 18:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll simplify template usage and correct the problem; this may take a day or two, as I'm currently discussing the changes with another Wikipedian. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 19:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You're awesome. There's no rush at all, I'm just glad that someone is going to take a look at it, and that future users hopefully will not have the same problem. Cheers, dfg 20:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Block and Ban

Thanks for clearing that up. Generally, I have tried to take a no tolerance approach to repeat vandals and try to nip them in the bud before they get back to vandalize more. However, I must have missed that passage of the blocking policy, and will reconsider. I still believe that the user whom I suggested be blocked be blocked. I have a section on my talk page of IPs I am currently watching to see if there is repeated vandalism or vandalism coming off of a block, and I will add that user to the list. Thanks again! Kntrabssi 08:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 08:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Advice about WP:VIP

Hi, I asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism in progress but thought I'd probably get a faster response from you :) I was looking at WP:VIP and seeing that it is becoming rather too full again, and I would be happy to help keep it clean.

Basically I want to know if it is ok to remove reports about IPs that have not done any vandalism for a few days? Should they be archived, or just deleted off the page? I noticed you and Shanel were to only two people to added to the archive in Feb, and only added alerts that resulted in a block. Are they the only ones that should be archived and all others deleted?

I also noticed that alerts are getting added to both the top and bottom of each section. I assume they should be added to the top, and it would probably be helpful to make that clearer on the page. Petros471 12:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I just added the 'post at the top' guideline to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Help#Reporting; thanks for pointing out that omission. Most alerts about IP addresses shouldn't be on WP:VIP at all; only IP addresses that are suspected open proxies should be placed on this page (see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Help#What belongs on this page). All others should be removed without archival, or moved to WP:AIV if they've recently vandalised. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 12:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I've posted a follow up on Wikipedia talk:Vandalism in progress, that you might want to take a look at. Cheers, Petros471 13:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

awb

replied on my talk Martin 12:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Reform

Wikipedia began as an open effort to create an encyclopedia of the people, by the people, for the people. Sadly, its bureaucracy has put an end to those goals. To this end, we must promote a peaceful revolution to reform it. We must eliminate the undue influence of certain people and remake Wikipedia as a people's encyclopedia. We, the reformers, are led by TJWhite who endured only briefly before suffering an indefinite block. Visit his user page to see our ideology, roughly outlined. I for one do not condone his call to vandalism. Instead, by using the power of the people, we can reform wikipedia. Join us to recreate an encyclopedia where all are equal; an encyclopedia that does not strive to become Brittannica, but rather seeks to be a one of kind encyclopedia for all of the people of the world. Please pass this message in some form to as many people as you can. Secondly, petition for the unblock of TJWhite, the one who began our glorious movement. Finally, link to his page from your user page and express your sentiments for reform on your page. Thank You, fellow wikipedians. LaRevolution 15:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Community Justice

Dear members of Community Justice,

This message is just a simple newsletter, telling you of some recent progress.

Community Justice didn't get as many members as we initially hoped, however we currently have 11, including a few sysops.

The temporary council is now fully set-up, and it will remain in it's current form unless someone contacts me (or uses the talk page) to say that they wish to join the council, or to hold a higher post. In this case, an election will be organised.

We have created two warning tags: {{civil1}} and {{civil2}}. These aren't been widely used, so I ask you to use them when you see fit.

Finally, thanks! Computerjoe 19:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC) (delivered in AWB).

Red Alert!!

I think we have an attack on Wikipedia under our hands. I say it is time to raise the Wiki Defcon level. --Jay(Reply) 22:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

We are aware; we're dealing with it now in #wikipedia-en-vandalism. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 22:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Would automatic blocking of all SQUIDWARD vandals without warning be ok? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Master Jay (talk • contribs) 22:30, February 26, 2006.

If by automatic block you mean by an unsupervised bot, that would depend how it detects the squidward bot(s). An AOL vandal could conceivably perform similar vandalism without a bot and deliberately get an AOL IP address blocked indefinitely. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 22:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource

Welcome

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apwoolrich (talk • contribs) 09:49, 20 January 2006.

Thank you. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address

I reverted the forced TOC at this page as seperated comments that belonged with the first version. There is a dissucion on the the Talk:Gettysburg Address about how this layout was arrived at. The short version is a casual reader sees an officail version right off the bat and is free to move on without having to sort through details. And for those interested in the detiails, and explanation good enough for a non-American helps you understand the issues.--BirgitteSB 18:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I didn't realise the current layout was intentional. I'm new to Wikisource, so I'm still basing my judgements on Wikipedia's manual of style. Feel free to revert any changes I make that you disagree with. :) // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It is certainly a unique layout, which is one reason I wanted you to take a look at it. I think stanardizing the layout for the templates are great, but we have alot of different sorts of layout for the texts here. Some like this one are for editorial reasons, otheres are from trying duplicate the original document. And others are just because there is no standardiztion :) --BirgitteSB 04:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Text of 2004 Osama bin Laden videotape

Hello,

I see you changed the standard back links on this page to "{{header}} proposed standard". Could you please let me know where this new standard is proposed & why it is being applied right now? Generally it is a good idea to try to get concensus on the Scriptorium before trying to apply a new method of doing things or a new layout. The header looks ok but I'm not convinced its necessarily the way to go perhaps you'd care to propose it on the Scriptorium with your reasons for introducing it & see what everyone's thoughts are. AllanHainey 16:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My intentions with the WikiProject on infrastructural and guidance development were mentioned at the scriptorium under "WikiProject IGD", and the standardised header was proposed on the WikiProject IGD talk page under "Standardised page infobox". Discussion ensued there and in the official #wikisource IRC channel between BirgitteSB, Apwoolrich, ThomasV, and myself. I'm placing it on a large number of pages (per agreement on #wikisource) to test it's flexibility outside controlled tests. Once I finish splitting a book (using the header), I'll invite discussion on the IRC and WikiProject channel, and implement any changes we judge desirable. You're welcome to comment on it at the WikiProject talk page, and we can implement any beneficial changes immediately. At that point we'll invite discussion at the Scriptorium about standardising it across the project. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 00:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Book of Martyrs

Greets, I was just wondering since I see you throwing up the Book of Martyrs, surely the woodcut illustrations would be PD as well, no? Might be a nice touch if we can find those, and illustrate the articles? If this is some flagrant violation of WS policy, forgive me...I'm still a little new :) Sherurcij 18:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If you can find the illustrations, they'd be great additions to the text. I'm pretty sure they'd be public domain as well. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 05:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Many images of the illustrations are available at the Foxe Digital Project. I'll add a few in when I have time, but the difficulty lies in matching them with the portions of the text they illustrate. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 17:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I am right in saying there is a Dover facsimile of the Book. If you can get one, you should be able to place them quite easily by comparing the printed text with the Wikisource version. Apwoolrich 19:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.lib.ksu.edu/depts/spec/rarebooks/martyrs/trapp1784.html seems to have a few great high-res scans which we might as well take advantage of. I've put a few below, but there are about a dozen on the site Sherurcij 19:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Cutbert Simson on the Rack
  Cutbert Simson on the Rack
• The Burning of William Hunter. / The Burning of Thomas Tomkins
  The Burning of William Hunter. / The Burning of Thomas Tomkins
• The Burning of Tomkin's Hand
  The Burning of Tomkin's Hand
• The Burning of Dr. Farrar, Bp. of St. David's. / The Martyrdom of Rawlins White.
  The Burning of Dr. Farrar, Bp. of St. David's. / The Martyrdom of Rawlins White.

AllanHainey's page

I noticed you've left a message on AllanHainey's user page. Since this is talk related, I'm moving it to his talk page, where he'll stand a chance of seeing it.  :-)—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 04:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, how absurdly newbie-ish. Thanks. >_< // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 04:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Help:Contents

I saw the work you have been putting into these pages and I have a slight problem. I had edited the pages to prominently feature this section: Before moving an article to Wikisource, please be sure of the following:

1. The article is not a copyright violation.
2. It is a published work as opposed to a collaboration or vanity piece.
3. Wikisource does not already host the text under a different name.
4. The source text is sent to the correct language domain of Wikisource.
5. Be sure only the source text is being sent to Wikisource without any encyclopedic information.

Because the template on WP Move to Wikisource directs a potential transwikier to that page under the link Wikisource guidelines. One of the biggest issues we have to deal with here is impoper material being transwikied from WP, and the backlog is huge by WS standards. So we need to find a way to address this on this page or by creating another and changing the template at WP to direct there. You seem to have a clear idea where you heading with this page so I just wanted to make aware of this.--BirgitteSB 21:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I have a clear idea where I want to go with this. I'm creating a detailed series of introductory pages that will introduce users to all of those points, among other things. As well, they will be covered in more detail in Wikisource's advanced help sections. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 21:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You have done marvellous work on these pages. One point, is that the help pages you began with, a number of which I have been writing, are not complete. As well as the Help:Footnotes one I plan a page about adding page numbers, which in time I wish to see as the basis for being able to index texts. The page number gizmo is valuabale for readers whishing to check the printed page with the WS one. The notes one is very straight forward, and there is a discussion on Sciptorium earlier this month about the page numbers, which can be adapted. The indexing is a bit more tricky as it involves devising suitable codes to cope with the fact that long works are in chapters as separate documents. In theory it ought to be possible, I think I am just now OCRing the index to Men of Invention and Industry which was missing from the Project Gutenberg version I began with.

I suggest that in the advanced techniques section you add one about navigation aids within the document - refs and notes, page nos, indexing etc, etc.

Is it possible to have a search box for a document? It is clearly possible to a search WS-wide, but for some longer documents without an index of their own it would be useful to be able to do an internal search, if you see what I mean.

I am a bit bothered that in some places on the new Help pages there is the comment that beginners need not do anything about adding the more complex navigation templates and the like since other people will. Presumably Admins. I accept that for a full Newbie this is inevitable, but perhaps these passages might be beefed up a bit to say that with experience an editor is expected to be able to do it himself. We don't want to get into the position of people thinking that ONLY admins are to add the templates! Kind regards. Apwoolrich 17:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Author index

Hey, Pathoschild, I wanted to say great job on fixing the template. I tried it with the PAGENAME variable but couldn't figure out what my problem was--it wasn't appearing on category pages. I saw what you did and I couldn't help but hit myself over it! Thanks for fixing that one up!—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 05:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 05:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act

All done! Not bad for a newbie, eh? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Public domain

Hi, Pathoschild,

As per the discussion on Wikisource:Proposed deletions, we agreed to remove most of the sub categories in this parent cat. The ones we agreed on keeping were to be integrated into a different categorization structure. Could you give some pointers/ideas on where these should be filed? I'd like to get rid of this larger category as soon as possible. Thanks!—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 23:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If we use the category structure I'm planning out at User:Pathoschild/Projects/Category structure, they would all be recategorised to Categories/Works/Works by license. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 20:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletes of works from Rhymes of a Rolling Stone

Hi,

I've noticed you're flagging all the redirects (e.g., "?") which redirect to Rhymes of a Rolling Stone/Foo (e.g. Rhymes of a Rolling Stone: "?"). I was wondering why you've decided to flag these for deletions. The issue surrounding these redirects were a sort of compromise. Since Rhymes of a Rolling Stone is a collection of poetry, I felt that its contents should have their own page, since people might not know what (if they knew at all) larger work they were published in.

Another user felt that since they were published in a larger edition, the edition's name should be included in the page name. This was a compromise: have all the poetry titles redirect to their respective Rhymes.../Foo page. This said, I think it would either behoove us to move the contents of the Rhymes to their respective pages (minus the volume name) or to leave the redirects as they are.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 22:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of the compromise; the titles are all common names, and I think they should be reserved for actual works. An example is A Rolling Stone, which is a work by Horatio Alger and is linked to from that author's page. Although I do see the convenience of redirecting alternative titles to the actual work, I don't think we should do the same for poetry and subpages. Especially in the case of poetry, where there are a lot of duplicate titles, our readers should use the search feature to find their text. I imagine there are a very large number of works called A Rolling Stone or Prelude. If a new editor wishes to add a work called Prelude, he's likely to be unduly confused by repeatedly ending up on a completely different page.

That said, I don't feel very strongly on the subject. If you think the redirects are beneficial, I'll update the redirects and touch them no further. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 22:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I honestly do not like those redirects and want to get rid of them, provided all the works in Rhymes get their own page name and do not have the volume included in it. We can disambiguate as necessary, as in the case of Alger's work of the same title as one of Service's. There are a few other works where this has happened, but we can approach it as needed.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what solution you're proposing; do you mean move, say, Rhymes of a Rolling Stone/The Gramaphone At Fond-Du-Lac to The Gramaphone At Fond-Du-Lac? I have no issue with that, as long as the poems aren't intrinsically part of the volume (such as telling a chronological story). // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Even if they do tell a story (and have a title of their own), I think they should have their own page. I mean, The Canterbury Tales is an example of poetry that tells a story but also has well known names to each of the tales.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 00:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant that if the poems are chapters of a single story in poetic form, they should not be moved to their own articles. That doesn't seem to be the case; the work seems to be a collection of standalone poems. I have no objection to moving them to their articles, and I'll begin to do so later. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 00:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

s:Twelfth Night

I don't understand why you what you did with the redirects to this artcile. The older copy was better to begin with I thought. Plus by redirecting to the new copy you seperate the history from the article. If the newer text were a better copy that could be pasted over the old one with and edit summery giving to the contributer credit as there would be only one. But this way it really loses the history unless someone thinks to look up the redirects and check for history. If the name was reason you could paste as above and then move page to preserve the history.--BirgitteSB 20:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The redirect was a hasty temporary solution until I asked someone on IRC to merge the edit histories; I apologize if it seemed like I was ignoring previous contributors. I've now placed an {{sdelete}} tag with the merge request in the meantime. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I was confused, especially since you always know a great deal more about technical stuff than I do.--BirgitteSB 00:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sysop

Hi, Pathoschild. You are now a sysop.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 22:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved pages

Do not delete the redirects that are created when pages are moved inside a namespace. That breaks the links to those pages. Exceptions might be moves of newly created pages, since those pages hasnät had the time to be linked to. /81.227.164.251 10:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

From your logged-out account, I assume that you refer to broken interwiki links. The only redirects I deleted were subpages and mirrored MetaWiki redirects; none of those should be linked to from another wiki. We sometimes see ways of improving Wikisource and move pages appropriately; when linking to Wikisource, please link to the cover page of a work. If you can tell me which pages linked to one of the deleted redirects, I'll fix the incoming links immediately. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 16:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Rhymes of a Rolling Stone

I have noticed that you have moved a number of pages in the collection Rhymes of a Rolling Stone and have caused problems with many redirects. Zhaladshar and I have discussed the naming of these pages. My opinion is that these poems were published as a book and not as individual poems. I have done some research on this. Be that as it may, I don't see how the page names you created are any better than mine.

As for changing the headers, I don't see the need for that either. Also I spent a great deal of time making sure that these poems are formatted correctly and I don't see the need for reformatting them. I know you have the right to do anything you want but you should consider if your changes are for the better or if they are just change for changes sake. Please respond on my talk page. --Droll 08:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The only formatting change was to replace hard HTML linebreaks with wikimarkup indentation; the rest of your formatting is preserved. The header and page title format were discussed quite a bit at the WikiProject on infrastructural and guideance development with links from the s:Wikisource:Scriptorium, notably at "Standardised page infobox" and "Title format standard".

The redirects broke because Zhaladshar pointed out the reasoning while I was in the process of moving pages and I halted midway to consider and discuss. I was tagging the redirects for speedy deletion; an admin eventually deleted them after I paused to reconsider. I'm uncertain whether to move the poems to their own pages and link the greater work to them, or move them to subpages and redirect to them. Since there are obviously arguments in favour of both methods, I'm fairly certain I'll go with the same compromise you reached with Zhaladshar.

Do you have any particular reason to prefer hard HTML linebreaks over wikimarkup indentation, or the chapter template over the standardised header? // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 16:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No you did not preserve the rest of my formatting. EG. Rhymes of a Rolling Stone/Prelude Also see below. As for "Standardised page infobox" {sic) and "Title format standard", it seems to me form the discussion that no consensus has been reached on this issue yet. I agree that there should be a common look for all Wikisource pages but I don't think were are there yet. I object to your imposing your rules on me at this point.

Are you going to replace the redirects? Why should your decision about page names be final. If I understand the philosophy of Wikisource, I have the right to change page names as much as you do unless there is a consensus of users. You should also be aware that some of the pages in question are linked to by disambiguation pages because the name of the poem is used for more than one page. Why is a slash superior to a colon. Note that Wiki link syntax treats colons as a special instance making links easier to write and less error prone.

Wiki implements indentation by using lists. Look at the source of any HTML page. Hard line breaks are much less prone to side effects and load faster. You should also examine how other users format poetry. My practice of using line breaks is very common and acceptable practice. Yes I have reasons.

Were you intending to change the page names of and reformatting all the poems in the Robert Service Collection and throughout Wikisource to meet your criteria. Why don't you works on the over one thousand poems Zhaladshar or the other thousands of poems. --Droll 22:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have my reasons as well, and I do know that MediaWiki uses definition lists for it's indentation. This syntax may be ideal for poetry:

• The lines are often indented in relationship to the rhyme scheme or rhythm, which is exactly what definition lists are intended to do. I fail to see where this is 'prone to side effects'.
• Tagging all poetry with this syntax allows simple manipulation of the lines and indentation style using the common stylesheet, a powerful feature that hard HTML linebreaks don't provide.
• Wikitext is easy to understand for new users, HTML less so.
• The definition list syntax is roughly double the size of the linebreak syntax, which comes out to be quite negligible. In the extreme case of a 1500-line poem, the syntax would increase the size by 4 kilobytes over hard line breaks; this is a non-issue, particularly since the vast majority of poems are no-where near 1500 lines.

The page name and header standards were agreed upon by the community. If you have a problem with them, discuss with the community; don't drop snide remarks on a user's page. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk)

I am not trying to be snide. If I sounded that way I apologize. We could discuss poetry formatting for a long time and believe me it has been discussed by others. There is a help page about it (Help:Editing poetry on Wikisource). The way I format poetry has been acceptable to other admin. My real point is that I choose to format the page in a certain way and I was and am free to do that. If you believe there should be a policy then we can all discuss it. What I want is what is best for Wikisouce. I also believe in the Wikipedia philosophy. --Droll 00:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss at [[s:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Standardise indentation and linebreaks|]]; a consensus on this would be the ideal solution. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 01:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Code

We are starting to get parts of the United States Federal code added in peicemeal latelyand I have been trying to keep it organized and standardize the page names at very least. This will be a mammoth document when complete. Currently it is published with every Title a seperate book, perhaps some take several. I think this is a prime canidate for a specialized navigation template and was wondering if you would take a look at it. You have proved to have high level of understanding how templates need to work and I am out of my league on this. Although this nothing that is needed immediately I think it will be easier to implement while the Code is still quite small.--BirgitteSB 19:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This could be accomplished using the smallTOC template on a transcluded subpage. What do you think of this example?

←Table of contents

U.S. Code (Title 1. General provisions) by the United States Government

Title 2. The Congress→

Titles: Table of contents, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50.

// Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 02:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary to split the text along every division possible? We could vastly simplify navigation if we merged small sections into their parent sections (for example, merge US Code/Title 1/Chapter 1/§ 2 (and siblings) into US Code/Title 1/Chapter 1 with headers. Depending on the size of the chapters, we could merge the chapters into the titles as well. What do you think? // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 03:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about a template that gave little more info about what is covered under different title. This isn't the sort of document you would ever want to just read in order! I'm not sure about condensing the section as having them seperate will best for the fact they will be heavily linked to by section. I imagine this doc will end up with lots of cross-refercing. I can find some examples in USA PATRIOT Act tommorrow.--BirgitteSB 04:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I looked up a little more about this sections aren't really the smallest division (sub-sections then paragragh then sub-paragraph) but the code is always cited by section (ie 5 USC §552a) so I feel we need to have divisions by sections except where whole chapters have been repealed (i.e. Title 8 Chapter 7 will read "Repealed: Exclusion of Chinese"). In fact some entire titles have been repealed. I am going to do away with those links now.--BirgitteSB 14:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's possible to link to a specific section on a page; for example, US Code/Title 1/Chapter 1#§ 2 would lead to the Chapter 1 page and jump down to the appropriate section (§ 2, in this case). // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 16:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose there is any inherent problem with merging the smaller sections. But it will make it harder for new people to learn, so far every piecemeal contribution I have seen has been done by section . And there is wide variety of size, one of the sections on copyright is 65 pages long in Word and there are 25 sections in that subchapter. So to merge the sections we would have to write up some instructions if under XGB then merge etc. And it would be hard to direct the right people to them as they have not yet been regular Wikisource contributers. I think it would be a good ide if there was group of regular WS editor that wanted to complete the US Code. However currently it seems that someone gets involved in an article at WP on some legislation and they want to link to Wikisource and they just add the one section that applies to their WP article and then they go away. That is how we ended up with so much variety in the page names. I am not against the idea per se, but I think it will involve more work for the people like me who will police and standardize the articles than keeping them in sections. About the template I don't see much use in linking between Titles but I was thinking about something similar to links have now (<U.S. Code <Title 18 <PART I <CHAPTER 37 ), where it is tiered but have it look nicer.--BirgitteSB 19:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

How about something along these lines, breadcrumb style?

←§ 2. Words denoting number, gender, and so forth

US Code, Title 1, Chapter 1 (§ 2. "County" as including "parish", and so forth) by the United States Government

§ 3. "Vessel" as including all means of water transportation→

// Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 15:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternately, we can move the breadcrumbs into the section parameter, which makes more sense.

←§ 2. Words denoting number, gender, and so forth

US Code (Title 1, Chapter 1, § 2. "County" as including "parish", and so forth) by the United States Government

§ 3. "Vessel" as including all means of water transportation→

// Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 15:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That will work work perfectly. For some reason I was thinking that it wouldn't work with the standard header, but I forgot about linking each word seperately. Sometime I have wierd mind block about how things should be use and lose sight of how I could adapt them. Thanks for the help.--BirgitteSB 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

interwiki links

hi,

When you rename pages (Free Culture and subpages), it would be great if you could also update the interwiki links that point to these pages, from other wikis. otherwise these links are broken. just check if the page you rename has interlanguage links, and visit the referring pages.

ThomasV 09:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Interlanguage links are easy enough to do; do you know of any method to check for incoming interwiki links, other than manually searching other projects? Either way, duly noted. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 18:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

no, I do not know of any other method than the one you mentioned. but if there is an interlanguage link starting from a page, you want to believe there is a symmetric link in the reverse direction. ThomasV 18:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, interlanguage links are easy to fix. I corrected a few incoming links on Free Culture and a few outgoing links to the French translation. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 18:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)