2006-08-14 2006-10-18 2007-01-28 2007-03-14 2007-05-05 2007-06-11 2007-07-18 2007-08-20 2007-11-27 2007-12-31 2008-02-01 2008-03-01 2008-05-01 2008-06-15 2008-08-31 2008-10-22

I had worked a small bit on the Knightley article a long time ago and when I looked at it the other day, this is what I saw. A lot had been added to it, some without sourcing, so I've worked on it and it now looks a bit better. There is more addition to source, but it isn't earth shattering and I think the article is shaping back up. I realized at the time what I was seeing created a huge GA liability.

I understand that people put a huge amount of work on the Holmes article. My point on the combined refs was that it did already contain a great many combined refs - 16 separate refs already combined and 9 uncombined. The ones I combined were the handful that hadn't been. Perhaps it would help to tell you I do have some vision disabilities, and I try to always come back and check what I've done the next day, in case I've made an error. If I do, it's not because I'm sloppy, it's because I didn't see it clearly at the time. A group of us (okay, 3 people) have been trying to get through all the filmbio articles chosen for the 7.0 articles and it's a lot to do with little help. Thanks for letting me know about your comment, I appreciate it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya,

Yeah, I'd asked about strict primogeniture & automatic eligibility of arms for OC recipients. If you have sources supporting those, I'd be eternally grateful.

Glad to see you didn't stay away. [ roux ] [x] 03:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Marskell#Update on FAC/FAR/FL closings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In ASCII, we have Mackenzie p.223 supporting the statement "space is neither printable nor control" in the lead and "space is considered an invisible graphic rather than a control" in the ASCII printable characters section. If you have a chance, would you quote the relevant passage somewhere? This has piqued my curiosity. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the latter is closest to what Mackenzie actually says. It's a section explaining why the space was put at the start of the graphic characters (32) rather than the end of the controls (31). In a serial printer, it's either/both, but in a parallel printer it's an invisible graphic. You want the whole section? Gimmetrow 02:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, since you're offering. It strikes me self-contradictory the way the article stands now, but maybe I'm missing a distinction between "graphic" and "printable". Anomie⚔ 02:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"But was the Space character a control character or a graphic character?... It is, of course, both. However, from the point of view of a parallel printer, it is only one of those things, the invisible graphic. By this rather hair-splitting reasoning, the standards committee persuaded itself that the Space character must be regarded as a graphic character; that is, it must be positioned in a column of graphics, not in a column of controls." Seems odd to type the whole thing; that seems the key stuff. Gimmetrow 03:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Anomie⚔ 12:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - As of today, my bot which uses a fairly old version of pywikipedia seems to have stopped working. Was there some mandatory update I need to apply? Looking through the mailing list there seems to be a rewrite in the works, but I didn't find any indication that the old framework would stop working. I'll keep poking around, but thought you might just know. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My scripts seem unable to "put" a new page. There was some big software change in the last 24 hours and (at least temporarily) a bunch of modules were turned off. Not sure if it's related. 15:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that why Wikipedia:Featured article tools stopped working? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was the interwiki module. But that module was reverted by Tim Starling very quickly so that should have fixed the tools. Gimmetrow 16:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be working again (just FYI). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with new "features". Moves are not leaving redirs. Gimmetrow 02:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved tons of pages today and they all left redirects behind (see [1]; the only redlinks there are pages that I tagged for speedy). What on earth is going on? Maralia (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take a vacation this week? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need my permission. I'm guessing the moves are bot thing, based on the account flag or the API. Could it have something to do with undoing pagemove vandals? The other option is the API changed and my code no longer sends the right flags, and it's somehow using the move-without-redirect option in mediawiki. (It exists, but we have no box for humans to select it, yet.) Gimmetrow 02:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was kidding: it's the moon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, are you OK with "more officially" ? Thoughts? NancyHeise ^talk 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Anything to do with "official name" sounds like a legal name. I don't think the Church says "this is our proper/offical/legal name" anywhere. But stating a document is in the right direction. Gimmetrow 22:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about "The Roman Catholic Church, known officially as the Catholic Church in its constitution Lumen Gentium, its historic documents and pronouncements, as well as in common usage,[1][2] " NancyHeise ^talk 22:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme, don't botify the FARs yet ... there's a mismatch in Marskell's archiving versus what he did at FA. I hope he's still online so I can sort it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Considering Marskell's usual editing pattern and the time zone he lives in, I suppose he's gone for the day. I suspect he mixed up United States Constitution and Menstrual cycle; I know that debotifying is a lot of work. User talk:Marskell#FAR mismatch. Even though it's pretty clear, I don't want to override his edits. What are our choices now? Hold off on botifying those two closes? Ask Raul to override and correct (I'm not sure Raul would do that anyway, I won't)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter; see above. Bot won't be running for anything. No WP:GO either. 18:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh ... I didn't realize that had bombed you out, too ... double ack. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, what Marskell entered at the FAR archive appears to be 'right', and that's all that affects botification, yes? He just needs to fix his edits at FA/FFA. Maralia (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. Sorry for the error. That's what I get for archiving seven at work. Corrected FA and FFA. Marskell (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I've been making presumptions about GimmeBot activity. My understanding from Sandy's talk page is that the GimmeBot will process closed FACs and FARs less frequently. That certainly makes sense to me. But rather than continue to presume, can I just let you clear up any misconceptions? Thanks, Geometry guy 17:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First you should remember I object to using a category as the primary record. They simply are not stable or accurate. That has nothing to do with GA in particular - the count from {{counter|FA}}, based on the category, doesn't match the WP:FA page (it's 4 off, right now). I have no idea why you would assume I wouldn't update GA at all. I might have understood if you saw the that change to the API disabled the script, but your change to GA/header was before that. (And the API issues seem mostly resolved.)

I do remember that, but we never really got to the bottom of why they are inaccurate. I didn't make any assumption as to whether you would be updating GA again, although I can understand how you might think that from my edits. I only noticed that the GA number had not being updated for several days, implemented a fix, then saw the discussion about biweekly runs on Sandy's page. If it is biweekly, then the category will be more accurate for the GA count, but I've no problem switching back to WP:FA for the FA count. I didn't know that the problem was the API, but am glad that this has been resolved. Geometry guy 17:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just FA, it's also FL. The category will not be more accurate - like a slow clock is wrong all the time, but periodically setting it right makes it right for a short time. How long have I been maintaining the GA page? Not sure, but well over a year. How long have I been involved with GA? Probably about as long as you. A couple days go by and that all gets written it off as "apparently no longer being maintained". People sure seem to be poking everyone right now, kicking them when they're down. You would think the well-publicized case with Ceoil would make people a little more sensitive to editors contributions. Gimmetrow 23:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never wish or have ever intended to kick anyone while they are down. I knew nothing of the Ceoil case until now. Wikipedia should be about edits, not editors, about improving the encyclopedia above all other concerns. A number of editors, Malleus included, don't seem to be complying with Pillar One and Pillar Five. I'm deeply disappointed in them.

Sure, I'm not stupid enough to understand that what applies to FA applies to FL. You have been been involved for a long time, but if Sandy posts on my talk page that "I doubt that we'll ever know Gimme's thinking on the matter, since I don't expect we'll hear from him." and "Since we may be making some adjustments (mostly timing of bot runs, since Gimmetrow has understandably expressed that the irregularity of promotions is a drain on him), we may want to see how things settle in." I'm gonna be looking for other solutions.

So far your contributions to this discussion have been directed at defending yourself. You do a tremendous amount for Wikipedia, but you are utterly crap at communicating what you do. You have explained nothing in this thread, so why are you surprised that people don't ask your opinion? Many other Wikipedians depend upon your work: how about actually communicating and sharing it. Geometry guy 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]