User talk:Δ/20110801

Rationale for image usage

This is regarding the image usage on the article as per the rationale. Sometime back, I had used film posters on 56th and 57th National Film Awards for award winning films. Those were taken out by you to comply with rationale usage of an image. Similarly, now winners' images are used on National Film Award for Best Actor for the betterment of the article. Please let me know if such usage of image can comply with rationale usage policy so that similiar approach can be taken for other related articles for their betterment. Thanks. Vivvt (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as the images in the list are free (which, a spot check seems to say they're all from commons), that's acceptable. The movie posters woudl be non-free content and using them in lists are not appropriate, but free images of actors is fine. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a quick reply. Is there any way to make film poster usage appropriate in the award list? Thanks. Vivvt (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• It's very unlikely. Unless a given poster's presentation on the awards page is critical to understanding as, for example, expressed through secondary sources, then inclusion of a given poster is just decoration. That's a failure of WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Vivvt (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

• News and notes: Wikimania; why Board of Trustees elections attract few votes; brief news

• In the news: Consensus of Wikipedia authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Wikipedia; brief news

• Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team

• WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia

• Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case

• Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Something interesting

This might be able to go on your userpage. Heh. --Σ ^talk_contribs 04:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

NFC

Since you are probably one of the most knowledgeable editors regarding NFC, I guess you are the right person to ask. Is there a list of or maintenance category for articles containing non-free files non-compliant with WP:NFC#Policy? I am especially interested in articles with non-free files failing 8 and 10c. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Database reports/Non-free files missing a rationale would be a good place to start. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• There's also this, but it's a text wall. Those are all 10c violations,. 6700+ of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot. Is there a bot capable of running through this and removing non-compliant files? I guess Δ would not be allowed to run such a bot under his current restrictions, but it seems to me this would be a perfect example of a task for a bot. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, because as shown by the extreme criticism that Δ has received, quite a few of these instances are because people simply don't know of the policy, or accidentally put the wrong article name/the article moved. Thus, a bot would only get reverted simpler, or have an influx of people yelling at it. I guess it could link to a disclaimer page as a subpage of the bot which states the answer to any and all arguments. But Δ has already done that as an edit notice when editing this talkpage, and I still don't think it helped much. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, Resolution:Licensing policy is a policy coming directly from the foundation. Point 4 clearly says "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content". Furthermore point 5 says NFC without a valid rationale should be deleted. In my opinion the policies ruled out by the foundation should probably be given more weight than people yelling at those enforcing WP:NFC. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You'd have thought that, but apparently "the community" thinks it's above the Foundation these days. And that goes right up to a number of ArbCom members. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Quite true. The rule of the game is create enough acrimony, and regardless of how much you are in error, if you can manage to get the focus of the acrimony to be someone other than you, you win and get your way. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Please people, this editor is under restrictions on enforcement of this very topic. When you comment here, you are risking the possibility of running the editor afoul of those restrictions should he make an inadvertent comment that crosses the line. Please don't push it here. Is there not some other forum where you could seek to garner consensus? Franamax (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Fran, ArbCom as zero power over what I do on the toolserver, I am not banned from discussions about NFC only that I cannot enforce it. If detailing my reports and helping users offends arbcom they can go kiss my friend ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not objecting here to you detailing your toolserver outputs, I've very clearly and deliberately placed my comment above your detail. I'm raising a point to the other editors of your page that they should be careful in their rhetoric to not get yourself involved in it, such as commenting on an individual case. Speaking of which though, I have a vague recollection of you confirming certain facts about deleted edits in recent days - so I'll just ask you to review the toolserver policy on data disclosure. No accusation there, just a suggestion, which you probably have already done. Franamax (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As for data disclosure, all that I used the TS for was confirming at timestamp from the irc.wikimedia.org feed that I log (I use custom filters for a advanced real time watchlist(s)) and revision size. I could have just gone from my logs however I probably would have made an error in the time conversions. The data that I confirmed was fairly limited. Page X was tagged for deletion at Y. And User A edited page X at Z time. If you want to see a progression of CSD at any given period I keep a snapshot of it at tools:~betacommand/reports/CATCSD which has a new report added every 10 minutes. So if a page is tagged for deletion for more than a few minutes the odds are it will show up in a report. Listifying a category is well within the policies of the toolserver. Since that does not touch the archive table of the toolserver and is a current snapshot at the time of the report all data included in it is publicly available. So please don't patronize me, with suggestions to review policies. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I generate several reports daily:

1. tools:~betacommand/nfcc/NFCC9.html which lists every non-free file used outside main space (WP:NFCC#9 violation)
2. tools:~betacommand/nfcc/high_use_NFCC.html a listing of every file that is being used on more than 5 pages
3. tools:~betacommand/nfcc/pages_with_excessive_nfcc.html a listing of all articles with at least 5 NFCC files

   Note that the green check marks are not approval for ratioanles, just that machine rationales are present for each usage. (this can often lead to a false negative)

4. tools:~betacommand/nfcc/rationale_missing.log.new a listing of every NFCC#10c violation that a bot can identify
5. tools:~betacommand/nfcc/NFCC_BLP.html a listing of NFC used on BLPs (easy place to scan for replaceable NFC)

All of these reports are located at tools:~betacommand/nfcc and provide a timestamp for the last time they where updated ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this detailed reply Δ. I appreciate it. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee closed

An arbitration case regarding MickMacNee (talk · contribs) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. MickMacNee is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After this minimum time has elapsed, MickMacNee will remain banned indefinitely, until such time as he demonstrates to the Committee that he is no longer a threat to the collaborative nature of the project.
2. Δ (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in hostile and uncollegial conduct, and warned that the Committee may impose additional sanctions by motion if such conduct reoccurs.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

• Wikimania: Seventh annual Wikimedia conference concluded in Haifa, Israel

• News and notes: Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay

• In the news: Israeli news focuses on Wikimania; worldwide coverage of contributor decline and gender gap; brief news

• WikiProject report: Shooting the breeze with WikiProject Firearms

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Manipulation of BLPs case opened; one case comes to a close

• Technology report: Wikimania technology roundup; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

SPI bot?

Hey. Can you take a look at Δbot's logs to see if something is screwed up? A bunch of cases that are closed aren't being updated, and I wonder if something got stuck. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Deaths in .....

Please note that these articles use bare urls instead of citations by consensus. Please do not change this without discussion. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ/Sandbox 2 seeping into main namespace

Hi. Your page at User:Δ/Sandbox 2 is seeping into the main namespace; e.g. it's listed amongst the articles at Category:Constitutions of former countries. Cheers, Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC).

I commented out the category inclusions, should be back to normal soon. Franamax (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

• Women and Wikipedia: New Research, WikiChix

• News and notes: Chapter funding and what skeptics and Latter Day Saints have in common

• In the news: Wikipedia a "sausage fest", Chicago Wikipedians ("the people you've probably plagiarized"), and other silly season stories

• WikiProject report: The Oregonians

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion case opened, two more still in progress

• Technology report: Forks, upload slowness and mobile redirection

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Made me smile 23 times

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference moving script question

I got around to trying the script out. Here is my changed skin. Clicking "cleanup" from the pull down menu works well, but clicking FixRef generates an error:

• from Hugo Steinhaus:

<removed traceback as not needed> The cleanup script also seems to break on pages where refs have been separated manually. See [24], the error is probably due to stars used? Not a big issue, but I thought you'd like to know. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ive fixed the error where it puked, Ill look into the second case. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

And I think I have fixed the other. let me know if you have any more issues. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

• News and notes: Girl Geeks edit while they dine, candidates needed for forthcoming steward elections, image referendum opens

• In the news: Journalist regrets not checking citation, PR firms issue advice on how to "survive" Wikipedia (but U.S. Congressman caught red-handed)

• WikiProject report: Images in Motion – WikiProject Animation

• Featured content: JJ Harrison on avian photography

• Arbitration report: After eleven moves, name for islands now under arbitration

• Technology report: Engineering report, sprint, and more testers needed

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Referencing script - more suggestions

It seems that the script does not move references without a name. Perhaps it could name them and move? Name could be generated from author's name and pages if a cite template is present. (I had to do this manual as a preparation for running the script in the next edit). Also, if a google book link is present, the script could run/duplicate this wonderful script and convert the reference into a cite book template (in my diff above, note that the google books refs have been converted with the reftag script). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wich date of the race is correct?

There are many links that containing several different dates of the race between Tom Thumb (locomotive) and the horse. Wich date is correct August 18 1830 [25] [26] [27] or September 18 1830 [28] [29] or August 25 1829 [30]? Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC) If August 25 1829 is not the date of the race then there is a mistake in Wikipedia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1829_in_rail_transport.

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

• News and notes: Abuse filter on all Wikimedia sites; Foundation's report for July; editor survey results

• In the news: Wikipedia praised for disaster news coverage, scolded for left-wing bias; brief news

• Recent research: Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Wikipedia's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety

• Opinion essay: How an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tennis

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four existing cases

• Technology report: The bugosphere, new mobile site and MediaWiki 1.18 close in on deployment

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ref script suggestion

It would be nice (and I think easy to implement) if the refs were alphabetically sorted by name (so ref name=a goes before reb name=b) in the end list. Did you have any thoughts on my previous suggestions (now archived)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought I implemented that. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Can we teach the script to put 11 after 2 and 800 after 89? Could be not worth the trouble. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I just use the built in python command sort() and not sure how to force it to sort any other way (easily). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 10:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

ref script error

The references where not added to the right place in this edit. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed it couldnt find the ref section. Ive added a 20em to it now. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 10:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)