Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This file may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:GTVA Logo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Durin17:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments1 person in discussion
The time has come when I must seek your advice :) Do you think this manga author is at all notable? [1][2] I'm interested in one of the series because it depicts the Battle of Svolder, which I'm working on. Haukur15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
There seems to be little about the series on the net. An excelent reason why a wikipedia coverage would be nice. I have a few questions for you.
When did the series start?
How many volumes/chapters did this series proceed?
Is it still ongoing?
Did the author of the manga create anything else?
After answering those question I'll be able to give a more tastefull answer.
I know very little about this and I don't have a good idea on where to find out more but I'll do my best. There is a very helpful book here if you have a Google account: [3]
The auhor is Azumi Ryo.
She started publishing in 1986.
Her first major work was Akai Tsurugi (The Scarlet Sword). According to that book by Gísli Pálsson, Akai Tsurugi was published in four volumes of about 200 pages each between 1986 and 1988 but this website indicates that it went on till 1993 with a total of 10 volumes, I'm sure that's more up to date.[4]
Judging from her webpage she is still active and has published several other series.[5]
I'm guessing this should be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Do you agree? Would you be willing to help me write an article? Almost all the relevant sources are in Japanese, which I can't read at all and I've never written an article about a manga artist. Haukur16:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Woha, I was expecting a 1, 2 volume series. A full 10 volume manga series is more than notable enough. Its age is probably why there is little about it on the net (which will make citing sources difficult)
I really know nothing about the series. Furthermore I can't read kanji or any japanese font well enough to ne of help anyone. But, I'll gladly help you in any way I can, ranging from tweaks to templates. What kind of an assitance are you looking for?
No need to apologise, its adequately tidy. -- Catchi? 16:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Great, thank you! Could you maybe point me to a guideline on how to write articles like this? Is there a WikiProject? And once I've got a stub could you maybe read it over for me and see if I've misunderstood something? Haukur16:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Generaly what is expected from manga/anime relatd articles is a brief plot summary, info about the notable characters, some sort of a backgound of the characters if applicable (such as if they have norse background), its place in culture and how it affected the industry. How popular it was (such as sale info or ratings (anime)) is also nice additional info. -- Catchi?
Thanks for the help! I tried my best at Ryo Azumi. But I'm not even sure what title to use. Should the family name be first or last? Should the title use Ryō, Ryou or Ryo? I thought using the macrons was the standard but I also see some articles that don't. Haukur22:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Firstname lastname format is observed (family name comes after given name). If proper romaji is "Ryō" then it shall be that (I am no expert in romaji). However all other combinations should be redirects including his/her name in kanji.
There is no real standard but you are whelmingly recomended to use this format.
One more question (I've never worked with Japanese names before). Which is more standard - to include a space between the two names or not to? Haukur09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
A space is preferable. Make it look like an english name basicaly, thats the informal standard. -- Catchi? 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me. Originaly I created them out of boredom but now they have a usage in Axis of Evil and Outposts of tyranny articles. I have moved the images to commons with exact names so you can delete the en.wiki duplicates -- Catchi? 14:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Foo Fighter.png. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Urd_(Oh_My_Goddess!).png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hey, whats up with that? :) What is the problem with the TR interwiki link? -- Catchi? 08:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I was just about to message you :) If you take a look at the interwiki links on Denmark there are two Turkish links. The correct one is displayed under "T" but "Tr:Şablon:Dolaşım" has added itself to the top of the interwiki box. It is the same with the article on Germany, but I can't see it everywhere, so I presume it has to do with a recent edit, either here or on the Turkish Wikipedia. If you have any ideas of how to fix this one, I'd really appreciate the help. Regards. Valentinian(talk)08:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hmm... <noinclude> is expected to prevent that. Originaly (before your edit it was outside of the <noinclude> </noinclude>. After your edit you probably was looking at the wikipedia chache. (templates can me a pain). So in the light of that/under that asumption. I'll try somehting... Hopefully it will all work, if it doesnt (and I might not necesarily see it) please do tell me. -- Catchi? 09:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, it looks fine now. I forgot to write it before, but I made the edit to the Turkish template (but you'd already guessed that one.) Thanks again. Valentinian(talk)09:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Hisakawa_Aya.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Cool Cat,
I have again a problem with those if-templates... I created http://nl.wikibooks.org/wiki/Sjabloon:Draaipagina2 on wikibooks-NL. At the end I would like it to be that I can create a template {Draaipagina2/Subject} with the code:
Then you can use in the articles just {Draaipagina2/Subject}, and it will give the thing you can find at the buttom of b:nl:Rekenen/Optellen. You can scroll to the next page.
To make that possible, I have to tell the template that if N (one of the numbers) is not defined, it shouldn't show the row what starts with the first variable N. Do you know how I could do that? Thanks a lot!
effeietsanders11:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
switch compares a single value against multiple others, returning a string if a match is found. The syntax is basically:
I had no experience in something like that, but if I were to design it I would use switch. Should I try creating it? -- Catchi? 13:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
In that case I'll tell you what I interpreted from your idea (I just want to be certain to evade misunderstandings)
You want a template which has a table with a variable size? Or does the table has a fixed size? I am kinda confused about details actualy (though I am inclined to use switch structure).
Ehm, it's not about a table. The original template is at b:nl:template:Draaipagina. The template was used in combination with b:nl:template:Draaipagina/Subject, where "Subject" can be replaced by the subject. Then the template "Draaipagina/Subject" can be used in the chapters of the wikibook. The template:Draaipagina/Subject takes care that something like this is given:
<- Previous module * Subject * Nex module ->
See for instance b:nl:template:draaipagina and b:nl:template:draaipagina/Rekenen and b:nl:Rekenen/Aftrekken.
With Template:Draaipagina2 I want to simplify the imput at Draaipagina2/Subject. I want to make it in such a way, that the imput can be as I discribed above. That way people who are not *very* good with templates can use it as well, and quicker. The only thing they have to do then is creating Template:Draaipagina2/Subject , define Naam=Subject and define the chapternames, 1 to N.
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Please don't restore that bad version of the page which had incorrect insignia, improper references, and false information. It seems the guy who added all that stuff that the Franz manual was God and disregarded all other sources, live action or otherwise. Restoring that page only posts bad information on Wikipedia. -Husnock14:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I understand gulf is stressful, but thats no excuse to revert-war on any article.
I was removing those referances as you were [senselessly] reverting. See the toal change for yourself [8]. None of that is inaproporate.
You changes are fine, but the original editor sees back at, reverting to improper page versions citing a tech manual in favor of what was seen live action on the show. I think we are headed for a page protection of this keeps up. -Husnock16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Sorry, I really dropped the ball on getting back to you. Hope life's been less stressful of late; mine's been sort of jet-fueled, but I figured if I didn't respond now, it'd be another two weeks...
Per our previous discussion, I said I'd try to give you some advice about how to handle disputes. The biggest thing I can think of is the old Fight Club mantra, "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake." Wikipedia is about the collaborative effort of the many, not the shining brilliance of the one. Take a look at the history of Nupedia for how that other approach failed in spectacular ways. Wikipedia will manage just fine if you, or I, or Angela Beesley or even Jimbo Wales, at this point, were to disappear (though the latter would require an election, of course). It's become big enough and self-sustaining, on the whole.
Does it make mistakes? Sure. Any big, disorganized, labyrinthine project to build such a massive encyclopedia is bound to have its false starts, digressions like the userbox wars, and collateral damage like vandals getting pages screwed up or deleted. But it's a wiki. It's almost uniquely well-designed to overcome all of those problems. EVERY SINGLE EDIT to an article is recoverable somewhere, by someone, unless a developer actually goes into the database and deletes it, and that's just not done very often. Even if a page is deleted by consensus, there's deletion review. If a subject gains notability/verifiability later that they didn't have in the 1st/2nd/5th draft, they can have a page recreated, and the old page(s) can be recovered from deletion if there's something worth salvaging in there. It's easy to fix.
So what am I getting at? Slow down. Don't take everything personally, or feel like it's your "job" to "fix" things. We're doing this out of volunteer love for the project, or the subject material, or humanity, right? Volunteers can take breaks. They can step back and let someone else shovel for a while. The job still moves forward, even without you. If you're getting hot under the collar, go do something unrelated: sort some stubs, click random article and fix some grammar, or just log off and come back in a few hours/days. I've got faith that other editors can come to the right decision, even in my absence.
Which doesn't mean I don't spend way too much time and effort here, anyway, because I do make valuable contributions - and so do you! See you around... -- nae'blis16:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
The issue isn't a content disagreement.
I haven't been allowed to write articles for a year and a half now. It was at first Davenbelle then Moby Dick (arbcom case just closed), and finaly Ned Scott. I am seriously growing tired of dealing with such issues. In all fairness Ned's case isnt as severe as Davenbelle's.
Furthermore, what you suggest does not explain this or especialy this. One of the links is not even related to this project (and that RfA itself has issues at the very least according to the bcrat closing it).
Please understand that I am not intimately familiar with your edit history, but it seems to me that no one has "prohibited you from writing articles". You're on restriction from Turkey/Kurdish subjects until October, and I don't see any restrictions placed against you in the Moby Dick case. I know you and Ned Scott don't get along, but he can't prevent you from editing (I would suggest not responding/baiting each other as often as you two seem to do; I saw the whole spellchecking thing and it looked like a pissing contest on both sides). The bigger problem I'm seeing is that you get upset when people disagree with your way of doing things. I get the strong impression you used to be a big vandal fighter; what happened there? Maybe something less content/admin-driven, more article-based and less controversial, would help you "get away from it all". -- nae'blis18:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Officialy I am not restricted from editing things even related to kurds and etc. Unofficialy Davenbelle/Moby Dick prohibited me from editing anything related to kurds, turks, armenians, etc etc and enforced it. My first arbitration case shaped the WP:HA policy on this kind of behavior. That was an unpleasant element that had haunted me until recently. I do not expect it to go away any time soon as the people spent all their wiki-experience in annoying me. That was ment to be a backgroudn info. :)
I do not mind people disagreeing with me, I infact prefer other opinions. I have issues with people who disagree with me as a habit. Furthermore, I have no issues with Ned. I do not hate him or anything even with that nonsense I had to deal with... It's just that he irrtates me from time to time... though as of now the dispute has been dead for about a month.
I did not leave vandal fighting by choice but thats a seperate dispute. Not in anyway pleasant. In a nutshell I wrote an IRC bot that detected vandalism on wikipedia and channel was renamed and got a new owner. That owner booted me off w/o bothering to tell me why to this date. I was going to write a new bot on the toolserv but I am putting that on hold untill certain issues with german privacy law are cleared (which is even a seperate legal dispute). Disputes are plentiful. :P
I just wanted to share issues causing me stress. Perhaps you might have advice that would ease the pain. Running away from topics like plague doesnt seme to be working for me.
Aye, that's why I said "officially". There'd be no way for me to go back through all your edits, and those editing around you, to see the conditions that you say led to you being chased off of article editing.
I wish I had something more clever to say; feel free to look me up if you have any further questions/stressors you'd like me to give my two cents in, I'll try to be a little quicker in the future... best of luck, CC. -- nae'blis00:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hey man. :) I'm not sure, he/she seems to be a new user. And as we all know new users take awhile to grasp the concept of NPOV. I could use some help over at the Kurdistan article. He's raising the population of Kurds without citing any sources. Thanks! —Khoikhoi02:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, sizes are probably wrong (flags are a matter of pre sicion) and we have a better one in commons. Bigger is not necesarily better. Furthermore the svgs can be made to reflect any size. I can get you a 40000px kurdish flag. It just would not be usefull in any article... -- Catchi? 03:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yea I know. :) I monitor (sorta) all articles related to kurds, I generaly choose not to react unless I feel its worth my time (kinda sick of pov pushers for a while). Being vigilant is prudent. -- Catchi? 04:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Its a delicate job isnt it? Not to mention stressfull and unrewarding (everyone hates you for trying). With moby dick gone I think I might offer a helping hand. I have my eye on Kurdish celebration of Newroz for quite some time now. It really should be merged IMHO. -- Catchi? 04:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it can be rewarding...it depends. As for the articles, yes, they should be merged, but the article is just too big to have all that stuff added into it. I don't really think it's that big of a deal right now, at leat we don't have Diyako disrupting everything. —Khoikhoi05:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, I believe the holiday is celebrated in an identical manner. Certain details on the Kurdish version is original research, weasle words, and etc. Most of the external links are unhelpfull and the poem can go to wikisource, where it belongs. The Main article has room for the kurdish stuff, no real reason to make the main article strictly about the iranian version IMHO. But yea no BIG issue but a merge would be nice at least for the holdiday part. -- Catchi? 06:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldnt expect any less from you. One addition tho, I think article exists mostly as a POV fork. I might be wrong on this but the political stuff (which has never to do with the holiday) bugs me a bit in the light of neutrality. What do you think? -- Catchi? 07:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh I am not disputing the political stuff. They just have nothing to do with the holiday and imply that kurds celebrate spring holiday by rioting which in my view and experience is not an acurate description. Yes riots have had occured in the past but they were not because of the annual spring holiday but instead happened on practicaly all kinds of social gatherings. The was a period of civil disprder when PKK had a greater influence.
I do not see the relevance of linked articles to this spring holiday.
Well, politics can be a big part of Kurdish life. Their recent history shows that. Anways, the article being inaccurate isn't a reason to delete or merge it. I think a fix attempt would be better in this case. —Khoikhoi23:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
There is already an over emphasis on kurdish politics on wikipedia (consider comparing the amount of text explaining the holiday and politics on the Newroz article). Articles that are strictly to explain stuff like kurdish culture dont need politics. Everything about the kurds seems to come with a contravercy explaining why kurds are so opressed or why kurds are so evil or both (all pov forks). The thing I am trying to point out is that I think its very difficult to maintain even the most basic level of neutrality when all articles are going to be peppered with politics.
Remove politics and you are left with the actual holiday explaining kurdish culture (the point of the article) which can be merged. Its the same holiday. Its not all that different and its not all that long.
Well, we will never have any progress with kurd related articles till eternity. So I might as well leave it all to your capable hands. I tried helping by fixing something thats not remotely contraverisal (just a holiday) and it turns out like this... -- Catchi? 23:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:( Perhaps the correct thing to do the next time is not nominate it for deletion, but leave a message on the talk page. Unfortunately things can get controversial as we all know. —Khoikhoi23:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yea but AFDs are frequently used to get concensus to merge and etc. My vote and bargin was never an actual delete. Talk page mesages got me no where in the past... -- Catchi? 23:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Based on skimming both articles, the Kurdish version of the holiday seems significant enough to warrant a separate article. The article is referenced, albeit mostly with external links that probably ought to be turned into endnotes. Were the Kurdish section merged, it would either dominate the head article, or information would be lost. Per WP:BIAS, if we have separate articles on ethnic Winter Solstice observations, we can have separate articles on ethnic Vernal Equinox observations also. - Smerdis of Tlön14:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I just want to clarify my reasonings. Bear with me.
Firstly, I am not proposing the information to be lost. Just seperated.
The holiday Newroz had been celebrated for forever (according to article). Kurds just like rest of the local peoples had been celebrating this and still do. Any diagreements with this?
I think it is biased to suggest the political rallys are a part of kurdish culture which wouldt come with the assumption that every Kurd supports the PKK (these "political rallys" often end up bing a PKK suprot rally orhganised by certain Kurdish political parties). Any diagreements with this?
The Newroz celebrations are hardly unique to the kurds (as per Norouz) and the politics stuff is hardly uneque to the spring holiday (such incidents happen on other social gatherings such as on the workers day and etc). That is why an article explaining the political aspect should be kept diferent. Any diagreements with this?
So, all I am proposing is spliting political stuff and holiday stuff.
Just a brief response. When a page is on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, what is at issue is whether the page is so worthless as to be unworthy of an encyclopedia, and ought to be entirely removed. Vanity pages, crank theories, confused gibberish, and deliberate vandalism are the chief offenders.
Your concerns about what should be at the head page of Norouz and what should be at this one don't fit any of the usual categories. This is the sort of thing that customarily is addressed at one or the other articles' talk pages. Likewise, if the page is wrong about the extent or significance of the politicization of the holiday among Kurds, this too is something that belongs on the talk page; flag it for neutrality and accuracy if need be.
I have no opinion on any of these issues, and no real basis to form one. I read the article on Kurdish celebrations, and it seemed to make sense and contain information that, if accurate, should be kept somewhere. And similarly, since it contained information about songs associated with the celebration by Kurds, it seemed to have enough independent data to no longer qualify as a POV fork, even if it once did.
No, afd is a concensus gathering process. I am NOT trying to get anything deleted,<just tying to reorganize the mess. See talk page of Kurdistan why talk pages are practıcaly useless (constant endless rants). The idea is to talk the opponent to death (forumer logic) I believe.
I really feel article should be topic spesific rather than ethnicity spesific. History can be its main article for instance. Political stuff should go to an article about political stuff rather than about the spring holiday.
Perhaps you can change your vote from keep to move/rename etc?
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Bertilvidet has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Eh, that wasn't really the kind of answer I expected. We've had some discords, that's sure, but we are here with a common aim: to improve and expand the encyclopedia. So let's try to keep a good atmosphere, settle disputes - and realize that our different approaches are a must for balanced and deliberate articles. Cheers Bertilvidet22:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
There is someone who spends his entier contribution just to harras me (Moby Dick) and you are actualy encouraging this. After that come here and lecture me about the common aim. I wonder...
I have no dispute to settle with Moby Dick, I settled that with the two arbitration hearings (one for Davenbelle and another for Moby Dick). All I seek now is the enforcement of the arbitration remidies.
Clearly we seem to be again at a disagreement about Moby Dick. -- Catchi? 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Arbitrator Smoddy (Sam Korn) has clarified that in his view the ban does apply to all namespaces. I'll await further comments to see how it pans out, but provisionally it looks if the remedy should be applied very expansively. Please do remind me if I don't appear to take this on board (I have lots of other things to do but that doesn't mean I've forgotten that I brought the case to spare you from being hassled by Moby Dick). --Tony Sidaway23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I just think we are again getting too stuck on burocracy. I think I have tollerated Davenbelle/Moby Dick long enough for one and a half years.
He should be blocked strictly for harrasing (stalking) me. Can we please block moby dick as fast as he gets me blocked? Please load his contribs
He will just get a new account and continue you know... I cant keep starting arbcom cases... He is no better than TRT.
See {{US Federal Courts}}. I started it for you. You can study the code if you like. :) -- Catchi? 22:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Than you very much and I looked at the code.
I just have one question: Did you start typing that code after entering "Template:US Federal Courts" in the search box on the left of Wikipedia's screen and beginning a new article or was it commenced differently?--Patchouli22:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Preferably after everything but categories and interwikilinks. Its not illeal to put it else where, just inpractical -- Catchi? 23:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You can start a template just like how you start a new article but put the word "Template:" infront of it. You do not need permission to start a template. -- Catchi? 23:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You have created quite a number of "unofficial" national teams, I'd like to know the reasoning. -- Catchi? 15:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I created an article for each of the non-FIFA playing nations because other articles existed for like situations. I just stubbed out the remainders. Patken403:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Why not present them in a list. I dont think any will get really large. -- Catchi? 03:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.
Request reason: "I do not want favors from Kelly Martin. Please lengthen time to 24 hrs or alternaively remove it all together (since it was just 3 reverts). --Cat out 21:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "Don't be silly, and don't personalise it. CC you should now better than to lame edit war - come back in 2hrs or wait 24 if you want. But just behave. (/me is asking nicely) --Doc22:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)"Reply
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.
Is it posible to use the bot that used to work for this for other wikis? -- Catchi? 16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, I expect so. I only ran a script against a datbase dump, that tool was sadly lost, however the historic relic from it Wikipedia:List of ips by number of edits shows that some IP's would have been among the top editors. I was thinking of (writing and) testing a new script against ang.wikipedia.org, since it's fairly trivial. RichFarmbrough 16:49 29 August2006 (GMT).
){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
