User talk:AFigureOfBlue/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir

Looks like this one is just about good, just a few bits in the plot summary that need sourcing. :) BOZ (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I'll take a look.

If I have time.

Which I probably won't. :( –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we got a few days. :) BOZ (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: File source problem with File:Chihuahua-pronounciation.ogg

"I, the copyright holder". Enough said. Octane ^{[improve me?]} 17.05.09 0348 (UTC)

Copyright tags aren't sources... there are a lot of files that have a tag saying that they were created by the uploader but which are actually copyvios. Could you maybe stick a note on the page to indicate that you made it, to prevent any further confusion? My apologies. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-self}} is explicitly a source and a licence tag; yes, any file that uses the tag improperly is a problem, as any other improperly tagged file eventually turns out to be, but good faith should be assumed. Any discussion about whether or not {{PD-self}} should include the language it does or whether it should be a licence and source template at the same time should be made elsewhere, in a more general area, perhaps TfD. At the moment though, it does serve as both a source and a licence, and more redundancy won't really help my credibility any more. Octane ^{[improve me?]} 17.05.09 1542 (UTC)

I've never before seen it referred to as both a source and as a license tag, although it does kind of make sense. I'd still strongly recommend adding a non-tag source to the file, but I won't delete it after having had this discussion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

G8

Ahem! [1] ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I wasn't aware that that criteria mentioned that; thanks for letting me know. I've deleted image talk pages for images on Commons if they just contain WikiProject banners, but I've left them if they contain any discussion. I also see that G8 specifies images pages in addition to image talk pages... I've been deleting some files where the only history is cats, vandalism, and other useless things (the pages have usually been blanked already) because of the definition of WP:CSD#F2 in the drop down boxes (I haven't deleted nowCommons images where there is other significant history). Is this also incorrect? My apologies if so; I'll stop right away. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know about many of these intricacies of the policy. But many WikiProjects keep track of images in this way, so project banners should definitely be left. Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay; thanks. I'd thought that if an image didn't exist anymore on Wikipedia since it was on Commons it would be kind of pointless for a Wikipedia project to track it, but I will leave them on in the future. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL, up until now I had thought I added that line myself, but I just realized it was already there [2]. One of the (few) reasons those pages are useful is to allow banners. With WP:VG, it is not always easy to find free images for video games. If it causes some harm it can be changed, but I can't see how it would. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that I follow you... having WikiProject banners on image talk pages makes it easier to find free images? Wouldn't just looking at Commons be easier? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

<references/> to {{reflist}} and back

Could you explain why your bot changed <references/> once to {{reflist}} and then in another edit changed {{reflist}} to <references/>? Also, I understand that the correct format is <references /> with a blank preceding the closing slash. One way and the other -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm... both of the edits that you linked to change <references/> to {{reflist}}; the bot shouldn't be changing it the other way. It does this when the edit has no (or virtually no) visual change, such as when the {{reflist}} template is substituted. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) My bad — it's too late. The point about the terminating "blank slash" notwithstanding. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(I removed the strikethroughs for readability; I hope you don't mind). There should generally be a space before the slash... both render correctly, but the latter is more XHTML-like. I'm not entirely sure if this change is built into AWB (and I can't find a diff quickly). If it isn't I'm not sure if I can reliably add this as a custom fix, because then the bot might end up making some edits only to change that, which would be completely pointless. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you see this?

User:AlexNewArtBot/DnDSearchResult/archive1 - I added several pages to the watchlist from there. :) BOZ (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No way! That's been there since June? Wow; I hadn't known about it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing what you'll find on a "what links here"! If you can think of any parameters to change for the bot's search, we can talk to the bot owner. BOZ (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How do we know what the parameters are now? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

• From the editor: Writers needed
• Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
• Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
• News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

CheckWiki overlaps

Do you have an opinion on this statement? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done; thanks for the note. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Bio Portal Placement

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography#Templates Bio Portals need to be placed just above catagories. No "See also" needed. Your "drilbot" is placing them in the wrong location. I changed it at: Phillip Pearsall Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

AWB is set to move the portal template to the "see also" section because that is the recommended location discussed at {{Portal}}'s documentation... I'm not sure if the biography project has this different on purpose for some reason (in which case a bug report can be filed for AWB), or if it just wasn't synced up with the template description. I'll look into this some more; thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

BBA

		The Wikipedia Bot Builder Award
		For your extremely hard-working bot, cleaning up tens of thousands of articles... For Drilbot's many little fixes, helping to standardize formats, and indirectly thereby educating newbies in the ways of the Wiki... And for your unflagging responsiveness and politeness when given feedback of all sorts... ...I award you this barnstar. – Quadell (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

April 15th

It would be preferable not to correct this by bot at all. The MOS statement is largely historic; the preference against it derives largely from autoformatting, which needs a clean format (April 15 or 15 April, no modified forms) to start from.

You will get a large number of false positives: book titles, quotes, and deliberate usages for emphasis or euphony.

My congratulations on your bot, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't really planning to turn that fix on at this time for that very reason. I think that I might file a feature request to ask that those fixes not be applied within italics, templates, quotes, wikilinks, etc., which should remove most of those problems. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In case you aren't aware, there is currently an arbitration case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking on the issue of date formatting. I disagree with PMAnderson's claim that the MOS statement is largely historic; it is a current style guideline that should be followed unless there's a specific reason not to in individual cases. However, it's best for bots to avoid date changes in any form until the Arbcom rules on the case. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 18:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of all that, but thank you for reminding me. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Any claim that MOS is long-standing consensus on anything should be taken with several grains of salt. In this case, the two forms were originally chosen because they were amenable to autoformatting, and this far-reaching discussion touches upon the matter. I see little consensus there or anywhere else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Signpost

Drilnoth, thanks! I'm going to make sure a discussion report comes out next week, so anything you do for that would help a lot: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-05-25/Discussion report. Piecemeal contributions to "News and notes" and "In the news" are also always appreciated (and drafts for those are usually linked from the planning room), and if there's a special story you want to write, just let me know (or just write it). There are a lot of academic studies of Wikipedia that either don't get covered in much depth or slip through the Signpost altogether (and often don't even get listed on that academic studies page), so if that's something that interests you, you could pick a few recent studies to report on.--ragesoss (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can do! Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely; those kinds if statistical looks at Wikipedia content are the kind of thing I really like to see in the Signpost.--ragesoss (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you would like any help with a discussion report, just ask me. I thought about volunteering, but I'm not confident I could help week after week. But I've found I work well with you, so if you're involved in something for it and want a hand, or if you're not sure how to word something, give me an orange bar. :) – Quadell ^(talk) 01:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer; I'm not entirely sure if I can keep things updated every week, so I'll let you know if I need an extra hand for some specific article or report. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OTT?

Sorry, but I have to question the value of changing all the image links from "image" to "Image" when the former worked perfectly well...? Thanks—GRM (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what page(s) you're referring to... could you link to the diffs? And was it my bot or me? Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please see [3]—GRM (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. The primary purpose of that edit was to move the misplaced category, which was located in the wrong location in the article. As my bot goes through the lists at WP:CHECKWIKI and fixes those errors, it also applies other syntax changes like image → Image... in this case they both work equally well, but I think that the capitalized version is much more common and should be used. So the purpose of that edit wasn't to change the capitalization (in fact, none of DrilBot's edits should be making that change and no other), but rather that was just a side edit made at the same time. Since it's done by bot it doesn't take up any more time to make the change while also applying other edits and the capitalized version is more common, I think that the change might as well be made if the article's already being edited for some reason. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for that explanation. We'll have to agree to differ on doing things like that (even by bot). I'm definitely of the inclination of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!"—GRM (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

drilbot

Drilbot made a mistake here - moved the comment about persondata away from {{persondata}}. Regards —G716 <^T·_C> 00:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; this would appear to be a bug in AWB. I'll report it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response and for fixing the article—G716 <^T·_C> 01:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Locobot BRFA

Erasing the whole section was a mistake, I just was making my bot trial and only fixed the local list, but I already putted the section back its place. Cheers Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 02:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand; I just wanted to mention that for future reference in case you hadn't known. It usually isn't much of a problem. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AutoEd, I think

I suspect there's an issue with one of the modules. See my post at;

• User talk:Quadell#Saipan

I've not yet tried AutoEd; have not read the whole page yet. This is the next thing, right? Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed; I just did the complete install and went back to Saipan and it offered to break the link again. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to bring this to your attention. :) – Quadell ^(talk) 12:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah... I haven't seen valid pipes in external links before. I believe that this is something left over from WP:FORMATTER... there are a lot of times when users will use a pipe in external links to separate the target and the link name the same way that it is done in internal links, but of course that doesn't work. Formatter, and now AutoEd, both include RegExp to remove the first pipe from external links because this is almost always a problem. I'm not sure if it's possible to make this work only where it should... if that is the case, would you recommend leaving it in (I think that it is a very rare problem), or commenting out the line? Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say to ignore it... but the trouble is, multiple users could go over the same article with AutoEd, making the appearance of edit warring. So it really needs to be addressed. One option would be to make a whitelist of sites (which might just begin and end with factfinder.census.gov) and tell the script to ignore those. Another possibility would be to ignore links with multiple vertical bars. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I'll comment it out for now and look into fixing it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how common the use of the pipe is in URLs. That the census.gov CMS is using it would indicate that it's a common enough sort of link. See, although a lot are pipe-free. I expect that building a rule to handle both cases will be an elusive goal. In the meantime, I think it would be prudent to comment whatever bit out.

FYI, I forked the white-space code as I don't like some of the cuts it makes. There were some other issues I noticed with Formatter such as adding spaces around mdash and ndash where it was not appropriate. I think. Anyway, it's late here. Glad you like my user page; note the use of negative margins in the column layout. There are some cute tricks on some of the subpages, too. The Editnotices spook folks regularly (they change). Oh, skip the talkbacks, please (and your editnotice should say talk page, not userpage). Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I'll comment out that line of code for now. I was actually aware of Formatter's problems with dashes, and I specifically did not copy that code into AutoEd... if AutoEd causes any whitespace-related dash problems, I'd be surprised. Thanks for the note about my editnotice, too. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Help for template

Hello, I've seen your name on the project template and I permis myself to ask you help: I've just created a new portal Portal:Lyon and I would like to create the templates for the subways, trams, bus. They already exist on the french wikipedia of Lyon metro for example. would you accept to help me ? Thank you Lulu97417 (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have a lot of stuff going on right now both on-wiki and in real life, and I don't think that I'll have the time to do this, too. My apologies; one of the other members of the project will probably be able to help. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't notice that posting on that page where we had our discussion would stop the bot from working. I would have written here otherwise. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's okay; I don't mind. I'm about to start it again; no harm done. Thanks for your bug report! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your bot is creating a lot of work for me in Category:Articles with broken citations. Because of the "}}" brackets it fixes in citation templates like Cite web. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... well I think that the templates should be closed properly. Having the citation flagged as having a problem in the article and categorized as such is better than having {{cite web|url=www.example.com as a citation, in my opinion. The cite web template requires a title parameter, and having the template not ended properly seems counterproductive. Anyway, there shouldn't be many more of those because I went through the list of articles with that error and bot-fixed those which could be. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you copletely. I was just complaining about the amount of work. :) Debresser (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I couldn't tell if you were complaining about my bot making the edits or about the category getting bigger. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Planescape: Torment

Thanks for the updates to the article. I just have one more request: I'd like to see a sentence added to the lead that summarizes the 'Characters' section (per WP:LEAD). This will make it plain that Nameless One leads a party (rather than this being a single character game). Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that Twas Now already added one. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking good! Three Supports and no Opposes! Clearly the best we've done so far. :) Don't know what the standard is for passing, but so far so good. BOZ (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Four supports, actually. :) At this point I think that it would be almost impossible for it to fail, but I'm not counting on anything. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing's impossible. ;) How long does a FAC run? Odds are definitely spot-on good at this point. BOZ (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Until it's closed. :) It's really a variable amount of time based on discussion, response, article improvement, etc. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Close of NOT RfC

Hi Drilnoth, I support your closing, but would you mind harassing your admin colleagues a bit and try to find someone to close it completely. An outcome of no-consensus is mighty obvious (and pretty much everyone in the discussion agrees), but getting someone to do so would be nice. Hobit (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Can do. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Complete Book of Humanoids

Have a look; I put some work into The Complete Book of Humanoids!  :) BOZ (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Much better! It still has a primary sources issue, but at least now it contains some real information! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Help Request Please

Hello - I am trying to figure out how to edit the title of the page Salman agah -- For some reason his page has a lower case "a" in his last name instead of upper case. I have tried to change this but can not see where to do so. Your instruction would be greatly appreciated! Thank you. (Asbk3 (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

The only way to change the name of a page is to move it, using the "move" tab at the top of the page. I have moved this page for you; feel free to ask me if you have any other questions! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Really appreciate the help and advice. (Asbk3 (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)).

DrilBot

The bot is creating DEFAULTSORT keys with inappropriate capitalization, see e.g. [4], [5]. There is no reason to use other capitalization than in the article title. — Emil J. 10:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's interesting... it should only be replacing the nonstandard characters like Ö, not changing capitalization. Thank you for notifying me of this issue; I'll look into it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that this is actually the correct DEFAULTSORT... see [6]. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice?

Salavat has added box images to about 20 D&D VG articles? :) BOZ (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I did. He deserves a barnstar. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey thanks for the barnstar, very much appreciated. Salavat (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT categories

Your bot is adding uppercased article names to articles and I was wondering why. :P For example, an article named "District of Columbia and United States Territories Quarter Program" had its title added to a DEFAULTSORT as "District Of Columbia And United States Territories Quarter Program" (note the uppercase "Of" and "And"). From what I've read at mediawiki.org this may be related to how entries are sorted within categories (uppercase letters come first it seems), but all things being equal, would this matter? =) —Locke Cole • t • c 19:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The capitalized sort key is in line with the guidelines at Wikipedia:CAT#Using_sort_keys, for precisely that reason: Making things sort properly with capitalization. The specific part of the guideline is:

Don't begin sort keys with lower case letters, unless you want to create a separate sublist (the ordering places lower case letters after all capital letters). To ensure that entries differing by letter case appear together, apply the convention that initial letters of words are capitalized in the sort key, but other letters are lower case. For example, use "Dubois" in sort keys rather than "DuBois".

At this point I'm just adding the DEFAULTSORTs as I'm going through the standard WP:CHECKWIKI lists, to help with categorization. The sort can matter, but probably not much most of the time... the primary reason for the bot doing this is because it is at least a little beneficial and it is already making other edits to the article (usually). Does that make sense? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, see testwiki:Category:FooBar. For testwiki:Foo bar baz I've added DEFAULTSORT using "Foo Bar Baz". For testwiki:Foo bar I've only added the page to the category, allowing the default handling of the sorting by the MediaWiki software ("Foo bar"). In the category this seems to cause the "Foo bar baz" page to be sorted first with the "Foo bar" page sorted next. But if left alone, things are sorted correctly it seems. Is there an example where this can help/matter? If you can make an example at the test wiki that would work too. Thanks. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 20:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Disregard, this diff from a message further up on this page explained it. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 20:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy you found it; sorry I wasn't quicker to come up with an example (I'm on semi-wikibreak). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Image copyrights

Hi. Three days ago, you tagged four maps (that I created and uploaded) as lacking a copyright licence tag. I've only just seen that. If you want the link, it's this one and three similar ones. I've put in a tag, hoping that it's the right one. I'd like to express concern, though, on the procedure. From what I understand, if I hadn't been around, those images would have been deleted four days from now, despite the fact that, when I created them, I explicitly included the following on their pages: "Own work, adapted from Wikipedia blank world map." I may not have put in the proper tag at the time, but surely their copyright status was evident. It couldn't have not been evident; the maps were clearly adapted from the Wikipedia blank map, and I specified that they were my own work. Would they really have been deleted despite this? That's quite simply absurd. Would it not have been possible for you to put the correct tag in yourself, if it needed to be done, rather than seek the deletion of images whose legitimate copyright status was evident and explicitly indicated? I realise you work hard for the sake of this encyclopedia, but your mistake in this case would have harmed the encyclopedia (very slightly). Would it be possible to amend the procedure to avoid the pointless and counter-productive deletion of images whose copyright status is actually indicated, albeit in written form rather than through a "tag"? Thank you in advance. Aridd (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: I apologise if I made a mistake with the initial upload. Aridd (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that deletion would have been correct; thanks for fixing them. The reason is that you specify the "Wikipedia blank world map", but you didn't link to it (there may be multiple blank world maps, so we couldn't know the license for the original that these four were based on in order to figure out the licensing) and you didn't specify a license in the description (so we can't really tell if it's public domain, GFDL, Creative Commons, or something else). In the future, providing a link to the original and adding an explicit license tag will avoid this; there just wasn't enough information present to determine the images' licensing. Saying that they are your own work is a source, but not a copyright. I know, it's confusing. I do check image descriptions to see if the license is indicated, but without a tag, but these images didn't have any indication of which free license they were available under. Thanks for fixing them! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh... OK, I see. I understand now. Thanks for clarifying! Aridd (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help; let me know if you have any other questions. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A DrilBot missing feature?

Hey Drilnoth. While I was looking over JagRoBot's edits, I saw that the bot frequently edited articles that had been previously cleaned by DrilBot, removing <br> in places where DrilBot had left it in. Examples: [7][8][9][10]. Did you mean to leave those functions out of DrilBot's functionality? All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 21:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... that's interesting. For [1], [2], and [3], I think that it was because the bullets were added into the list in DrilBot's edit, so if the bullets are applied after the fix that removes the <br />, it won't register them. For [4], I have no idea what happened... strange. It's probably just a minor bug in AWB... doesn't seem too major though. I do know that if there are multiple <br /> tags in the list DrilBot only removes one... I reported this bug, so maybe it is fixed... I don't plan on working through the actual "break in list" list for awhile now anyway, though. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

• License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
• News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
• WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Drilbot error, query

Hi. Just noticed this change to GWR 3300 Class. The issue is with the added defaultsort parameters, which have used "Gwr" instead of "GWR". I haven't corrected this yet, so that you can see the effect in Category:4-4-0 locomotives. I was surprised by this error, since I would have expected the bot to use the page name, where it clearly hasn't here.

In fact, I'm not sure that defaultsort is needed here at all, since the default sort order is simply the unchanged article name. See GWR 4100 Class and you'll see that the parameters work fine without resorting to defaultsort.

Will watch this page until I reckon our conversation is complete, unless the level of activity on your talk page threatens to swamp my watchlist!

EdJogg (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi EdJogg! The reason for this change is documented at User:DrilBot/Summaries#DEFAULTSORTs. In short, per WP:CAT#Using sort keys, the first letter of each word in a DEFAULTSORT should be capitalized and the rest should be lowercase. In Category:4-4-0 locomotives, for example, having "GWR" located after "Gov. Stanford" is more logical than having it before simply because of the capitalization. I agree that this looks kind of strange at this time, but that's mainly because so far only one article has the DEFAULTSORT. When they all do, it will make more sense because then "GW" will, for example, be located after "Go". –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, then...I see the reasoning. You will also appreciate that there are an awful lot of loco class articles that will need defaultsort added to meet this requirement. In the majority of cases, certainly for UK locos, the name starts with the railway company in abbreviated form. Perhaps you can run through the relevant cats to sweep them all up in one go and minimise the time that the cats are poorly sorted? (For example, ignoring the recent exception, Category:4-4-0 locomotives is properly sorted, but will go through a phase of unsortedness as the defaultsort parameters are applied.) EdJogg (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually already requested approval for just such a task and it was speedy approved; I hope to start going through some of those categories in the next few days, once DrilBot finishes up the current list from CHECKWIKI. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff! This will be a big job, as a very large percentage of pages will have titles that don't match the defaultsort naming criteria. Hopefully, as the changes become more widespread, more editors will understand what's being done and you'll get fewer responses like mine (and the editor's below). Cheers EdJogg (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DrilBot, unnecessary change

Well, it speaks for itself: [11] --MrStalker ^(talk) 19:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind... --MrStalker ^(talk) 19:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Dungeons & Dragons

Sorry but I closed Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Dungeons & Dragons as not a WP:FPORT at this time. After two months at WP:FPOC there were no supports and still some unaddressed issues. Take some time to improve it further and address those points, and then try to resubmit at a later point in time. Let me know if you'd like help with something in particular. Also, the stuff by RichardF is pretty excellent to model off of, as well. Cirt (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay; this really just fell behind on my to-do list with a bot to operate, an open FACs, and a few GANs... I'll put some more work into it when I have some extra time. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great! Cirt (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: {{Lifetime}} and DrilBot

I just want to commend you and say "thanks" for your prompt, informative, courteous, and downright professional handling of the issue at User talk:DrilBot#Moving location of lifetime template. I am posting here so I don't stop the bot again. I really, truly appreciate it. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 21:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your bug report; it's always good to know about these things. If you see anything else, please let me know! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Odd capitalization

In this edit, the wondrous DrilBot changed:

{{DEFAULTSORT:Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, The}} to

{{DEFAULTSORT:Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For EvolutiOn, The}}

Note the last two letters of "EvolutiOn". It looks like some code thought "I am going to change 'on' to 'On' everywhere". BTW an editor fixed the above by changing both back to "on" which I realize from the above discussion is not correct. Johnuniq (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... that's odd. I'll report it to the AWB developers; I haven't had any other reports of this so I wouldn't worry about it too much as a recurring issue. Thanks for letting me know! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank'ee

Thanks for the prot. The issue was I was not sure if one was going to come up anytime soon (and the fact that I had removed the section in the first place), so I didn't prot. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 18:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help. :) I just protected it for an hour... since there wasn't an active discussion where anons were commenting, I think that it's fair to say that they can comment on the talk page if required, since everyone watching AN/I is watching that, too. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Drilbot Question

Your bot has added some Defaultsort tags to several radio and TV station pages. For example, with TV station WPSU-TV it added {{DEFAULTSORT:Wpsu-Tv}}. What exactly are these used for and why are most of them in lower case letters when call signs are all capital letters? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi; this question has been answered at #Drilbot error, query. Hope that helps! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. It will be a big job to defaultsort all the radio and television station pages Let me know if you ever need any help. Take Care and Thanks for the quick response. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help; I hope to go through some of those category by category. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started some cleanup of these by setting my bot to go through Category:Television channels and stations by year of establishment. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

D&D

Hi Drilnoth, I'll sort out the reviews and interview for you tommorow. I'll probably scan them in and upload them to scribd (since AFAICT there is no copyright holder anymore). Thanks for your interest, Marasmusine (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I wussed out and just added the scans to flickr instead (Scribd requires messing about with PDFs)

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/8847885@N08/3575893968/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/8847885@N08/3575086355/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/8847885@N08/3575086783/

You'll prolly need to click on "all sizes" to read the text. I've included an appropriate citation tag in the notes. Marasmusine (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Most excellent! I'll be working on those articles probably right after the weekend. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool!  :) If you can't find the time to work on it, I'll try to do so; Pool of Radiance was a big one for me back in the day! BOZ (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wednesdays are my proper "making stuff on Wikipedia" days, so I'll probably give those articles a good seeing to next week. Glad I could help! Marasmusine (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey man, good work on Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate; were you planning on going solo with that? :) Check out my latest comments on the WikiProject talk page - looks like you signed off just as I was finishing! And I mean what I said about about Pool of Radiance!BOZ (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't say no to any help on MoW. :) I'm hoping to get it into DYK soon before a GAN. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock and then topic ban for Aoganov

Please see and comment here. --mav (talk)

Umm... I'm not involved in this particular case and I don't get involved in blocking-related stuff from an administrator perspective. Why are you asking me? Ah, it looks like you're notifying a bunch of admins. I'd recommend against that... people will see it at AN. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of informing just those people who have been involved in the GFZLab sockpuppet case, Aoganov or the gamma boron edit conflict... I guess I made a mistake with you. Sorry about that. --mav (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay; no harm done. Thanks for the clarification! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

16K

Who knows? We may actually get it below 16K! Long way to go, though. Thanks for all you do around here! – Quadell ^(talk) 19:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome; happy to help. But... I haven't really done much in the copy-to-Commons area recently. It's mostly been other image stuff. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Note to self

Add needs-photo to AssessorTags per request. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of Capitals

The bot is changing the wording of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding) article in the defaultsort to DEFAULTSORT:Duke Of Wellington'S Regiment (West Riding) I know the convention is to capitalise the first letters of words but in this case the capitalisation of 'of' to 'Of' and capitalising the 's' after the apostrophe in 'Wellington's' is incorrect. Can you do anything to correct that? Its getting boring having to correct the title manually everytime the bot is run! ;) Richard Harvey (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is documented at User:DrilBot/Summaries#Sort and is done per guidelines... there's an earlier discussion on this here. Hope that helps! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalizing the 'of' was correct. Capitalizing the 's' is debatable. This is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#DEFAULTSORT capitalization. Please weigh in. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 04:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

DrilBot typefacing

Howdy. Quick note to mention DrilBot stumbled a little in fixing a selflink, here. I think the issue was the opening words were selflinked plus bolded already, and DrilBot de-linked leaving stray punctuation marks. I'll leave it in your capable hands. (No need to reply, though I'll see any reply here if need be.) –Whitehorse1 03:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I prepared the following report of the same thing before noticing the above. Here it is anyway (I also don't need talkback).

In this edit DrilBot fixed an article which had the title in the lead in [[brackets]]. However, it failed to notice that there were already apostrophes to make the title bold, and it changed '''[[Jay Ruby]]''' to ''''''Jay Ruby''''''. Just needs a little more intelligence. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh... that's odd. Thanks for the report; I'll look into it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Crazy bot?

I'm worried about this couple of reports in my talk page about Locobot bad edits. I think that those those bot errors were done by my customize AWB configuration or if they are an AWB bug, but I have stopped all my bot operations until I know the cause of this problem. (I have reported this to you because our bots do the same kind of edits) Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 16:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC) PS: Maybe I have to check my recent bot edits (about 8000)

That's odd... I think that it is probably in your AWB config, because to my knowledge AWB doesn't add {{lifetime}} at all, and the weird category addition right in the middle of the template is kind of odd. Perhaps you should just check your custom code? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for thinking to notify me. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was my configuration so I have restored it to the original values. Anyway, thanks. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 20:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you see? StringFunctions will be big when it hits the street. I don't even know yet what I'm going to use it for, but I can't wait. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw... isn't it great? I can't wait... wikisyntax RegExp has been long-needed. Now they just need to activate JavaScript event handlers for divs and spans ;) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mass-removal of links in one recent edit

Thanks for the response about a new version of AWB only de-linking if there are multiple links; that would seem to resolve that part of it.

As for bolding the current page in navigation, this is the right thing in most contexts (e.g. taxoboxes and navboxes). I couldn't find a policy on alphabetical navigation as in List of Canadian plants by family but I was operating under the assumption that the same style would be desirable. Self-links are bad when they show up as links (for example, when an article links to itself via a redirect), but when they show up as bolded non-links they are a pretty standard thing (at least when the link comes in via a template).

As for restarting the bot, I'll leave that to you (and/or the bot approval powers that be); I don't know whether these kinds of things are happening on a few pages or a lot. Kingdon (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Generally speaking, I think that most everything that needs to be bolded via a selflink in an article can be done either via a template (e.g., a template for navigation of those pages) or through standard triple-apostrophe bold formatting. Most of the time selflinks in articles can be removed normally... they could be left over from a page merge, put as author links in references, etc., but I see that there are some cases where just removing them is a Bad Thing™. I will look into this further. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate

On June 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 09:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy?

G7? From CSD? After a deletion discussion? (Not that it would qualify as G7 even if it hadn't been under discussion). I can't find the words. Yomangani^talk 12:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• The original uploader said:
  • "Delete per nom. I'm the original uploader, but am more than happy that someone has since (4 months later!) uploaded a better picture. Can't believe it's not been deleted earlier to be honest...GiantSnowman 23:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)"
• I confirmed that he was the original uploader and the only significant edit since then had been to crop the image... so it looks like the author requested deletion. If you feel that this was incorrect, you can bring it up at WP:DRV... I don't mind. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • So you still think applying the G7 CSD criteria to the deletion discussion is valid? Despite the fact two people suggested keeping it? And the fact that it had been undeleted previously? Amazing. I'll pass on deletion review: it's depressing that adherence to process should be thought more important than common sense. Yomangani^talk 13:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    • In truth I think the discussion would have been closed as "delete" anyway. I feel that I made the common sense decision here... the primary author said that it should be deleted, and I could see no reason why this wouldn't be a valid G7. Please let me know when you have the DRV page up then so that I can comment. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
      • A closer reading of my comment would have revealed that I don't intend to take it to DRV, just as a closer reading of the deletion discussion (or just my comment if the whole thing can't hold your attention) would have revealed that deleting the image was not the correct action and a closer reading of WP:CSD would have revealed its purpose too: Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for articles with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Yomangani^talk 13:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Wow... I did misread your comment; I think my brain inserted a "to" to make it "pass on to deletion review". Anyway, as I said I would have closed that one as delete anyway... consensus seemed to be to delete the image as not needed in the article. However, I will ask Quadell to take a look... he has more experience in the image deletion area than I do. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. If the original uploader requests that the image be deleted, then it can be deleted by any admin speedily, without waiting for any other processes to expire. G7 does not say "unless it's listed at FFD". I would have made the same call. Yomangani, if you truly thought that Drilnoth's deletion was against policy, there are proper channels for this; you've said you don't intend to use them, so I'm not sure what more you intend to accomplish by making subtly insulting comments on his talk page. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just some common sense, please. Read my comment in the deletion discussion and then decide whether, if one of the cover images in the article should have been deleted, this was the right image to go. Find me another FA book article where the FU cover image is of a different book to that of the subject of the article and no image of the subject's book cover art appears. Although "any admin" can do many things, we choose them (supposedly) because of their ability to use discretion and judgement - this misapplication of the CSD rules is not one of the things an admin with these qualities should be doing just because they can. As you so rightly stated, Quadell, there are proper channels for dealing with this, the first of which is discussion with the deleting admin. Sadly, if neither of you can honestly see that there was a mistake made here in applying G7 then DRV may be a waste of time anyway. (And there's nothing insulting - subtle or otherwise - in my comments; I am astounded both that the decision was made and that it continues to be defended. If you believe that my expression of amazement is an insult then you've led too sheltered a life). Yomangani^talk 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier, please feel free to start a DRV if you wish... that would bring some more eyes in to look at this. I, personally, read each comment and closed the discussion as best as I could determine how: If it hadn't been G7'd, it would have been deleted as having consensus. I have little opinion on whether or not the image should have been deleted; I was simply trying to determine consensus to the best of my ability. You could probably, as an alternative, nominate the other image for deletion and say that if it is deleted the previous one is to be restored, but consensus seems pretty clearly for only having one cover, and (based on that discussion) that the one nominated was to be deleted. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not a worthwhile use of anybody's time. This is just another example of the adherence to process and form that slowly wittles away at those interested in writing an encyclopaedia. Rest easy, I shan't be wasting any more effort on it. Yomangani^talk 15:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have signed the forms in triplicate and sent them in. Presumably they will now be to be sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters. At least they are not locked in a filing cabinet in a cellar, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Have a nice day! -- Testing times (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Your filescript for removing earlier revs

Hey. It seems to miss if the template is formatted in the {{non-free reduced|1=May 19 2009}} with the "1=" instead of simply the time and date (as a lot of these images seem to be tagged). Mfield (Oi!) 03:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; it should be fixed now. I'm going to be logging off for awhile now and don't have time to test it; if I accidentally introduced a bug, just revert the last two edits on User:Drilnoth/filescripts.js. (you'll need to purge your cache for the changes to take effect). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be working still - try it on File:As_good_as_it_gets.jpg Mfield (Oi!) 03:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I just tried it there, and it worked fine for me... did you purge your browser's cache? (Ctrl-shift-R in Firefox; I don't know the commands in other browsers). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Could it be related to WikEd? I know some of the other scripts like AfD closing ones don't work when using WikEd as I am. Strange thing is it works when the "1=" is not present, maybe it is a wikEd character map thing?Mfield (Oi!) 01:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That could be doing it... I'll try to fix it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Title linked in text

We should better wait for the next database scan. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 02:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hello, I recorded an album (Alam) of some of my lute musics and it was edited in last may by the berliner label Humming Conch. It would be great that you add my name as an actual composer for the lute. Here are the links to the label and to my myspace lute music: http://www.hummingconch.net/releases/conch-003-christian-vasseur-alam http://www.myspace.com/chrisaturnevass

Best regards.

Christian Vasseur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.80.254.163 (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You can feel free to edit an article yourself to add your name in if it is appropriate, but please be sure that you understand Wikipedia's rules regarding conflicts of interest first... I can't tell from your post what article you want to have changed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bot defaultsort

Hi there! Might want to check the bot... I don't think edits like these are necessary. 1) It will already sort in the categories under "Drosera binata", 2) binata is lowercase as it's a species epithet, and 3) some categories already have specialized category sorts, such as [[Category:Drosera|binata]] (notice the lowercase sort, since we at WP:PLANTS prefer lowercase species epithet sorts in the taxonomic categories). Hope this was just a one-time error and wasn't systematic. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 01:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is the bot's intended function. "binata" in the DEFAULTSORT is supposed to be uppercase per the guideliens WP:CAT#Using sort keys... the first letter of each word should be capitalized, and all the rest should be lowercase, regardless of the article's actual title. This helps with sort keys in categories... MediaWiki alphabetizes lowercase characters after all uppercase letters when determing how to sort categories, so the DEFAULTSORTs should be consitently capitalized so that the alphabetization makes sense. So to answer your points: 1) It is actually incorrect (per those guidelines) to have the sort key as "Drosera binata". 2) "Binata" is usually lowercase, but it should be uppercase because it is the first letter of a word in a DEFAULTSORT. 3) I don't believe that DEFAULTSORTs override the per-category sort keys... that's why they are called DEFAULTSORTs. With my bot's change, that article will still sort correctly in Category:Drosera as it will be listed under "binata", the override of the DEFAULTSORT, but in all other categories it will be alphabetized as "Drosera Binata", with the uppercase, which is correct according to current guidelines. It's kind of confusing, I know... let me know if you have any other questions/concerns. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply. It is quite confusing, and the guideline isn't exactly clear. "To ensure that entries differing by letter case appear together, apply the convention that initial letters of words are capitalized in the sort key" - does that mean each word? And you can understand my reaction to the defaultsort with a capitalized species epithet, especially when it presents such a glaring nomenclatural mistake in the edit window. (It drives me crazy when newspapers or online magazines capitalize species epithets or forget to italicize genera and species...). I'm quite certain others who are editing articles with this kind of defaultsort in place will think it a mistake too and "correct" it. I'm not certain how widely known this guideline is. It really won't make much of a difference in this case, though. I'll revert myself, but if you don't mind I'll ask for some clarification at the guideline talk page. It's also not really clear how much latitude is given for lowercase sorts. For example, take a look at Category:Utricularia, one of the complete genera I've worked on. Others in the taxonomy projects have agreed lowercase is better, but the guideline seems to discourage that unless a sublist is desired in the category. Anyway, thanks again. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus at WP:AWB/B seems to be that it means each word... I understand your concerns, but as I said this really just helps with categorization. And besides, the text of the DEFAULTSORT isn't shown in the actual category... the article's real name is; the sort key just sets where in the category it is placed. So nothing will show up in categories as "Drosera Binata", regardless of any DEFAULTSORTs. Anyway, I agree that the guideline is not well known, but I feel that it is important. I'll watchlist WP:CAT so that I'll see your discussion. (I'll have my bot do other things until there is a resolution, just in case consensus is to remove that). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think you have to direct your bot elsewhere. Your edits appear to have consensus. All I'll be asking for is clarification and perhaps a rewording to make it more clear. I realize it won't show up in the categories as "Drosera Binata", but perhaps others like me will see "Drosera Binata" in the edit window in the defaultsort, cringe, assume it's a mistake, and change it. I can see the advantage to having things sort according to capitalization, but I'm wondering what real application this has. Is there any example of "Drosera binata" not alphabetizing properly under the D's in any category? I can only think of categories like the "Flora of..." ones, but even there no other article will be sorted near "Drosera binata" unless it's another species of Drosera, rendering the uppercase/lowercase for species, at least, unnecessary as long as they're all the same. And in all my time editing flora articles, this is the first time I've seen defaultsort applied to a species article. Well, anyway, I'll reorganize my thoughts and state them a little more eloquently in the morning at WP:CAT. Thanks for your time this evening. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Anyway, this specific article might not be affected much by the change, but see, for example, the discussion here... the category being discussed had been a bit of a mess because of incorrect alphabetization. This change will apply to some categories and articles more than to others, but I think that it is probably easiest to just have them all follow the same guidelines. Since it can be done so easily by bot, there's no real harm in adding it, even if it doesn't make a huge difference for some (perhaps many) articles. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The original message has a valid point. For binomial names, the species epithet is always lowercase, and there is no existing problem with differently-cased entries not appearing together. But when the bot adds DEFAULTSORTs to such articles, we inevitably end up with a situation like the current Category:Chromis where, as of right now, the order of entries is is "C. abyssus", "C. brevirostris", "C.amboinensis", ... — because the first two have had a defaultsort added, but the next one has not. Since new species articles are added all the time, and there is no established tradition for giving them capitalized defaultsorts, the net effect of the bot is to make all the biological genus categories appear disorganized for the indefinite future.

In my opinion, trying to fix the alphabetization problem by adding defaultsorts to every article with more than one word in the title is the wrong approach. Defaultsort is a fine tool for things like sorting biography articles by last name, and perhaps also for removing diacritics, since those tasks may be hard to reliably mechanize completely. But if it's desired for category sorting to be case-insensitive (or for "a" to sort immediately after "A", instead of somewhere after "Z"), like what most readers expect, then that change should be added uniformly to the MediaWiki software (as you also write in the FAQ). I would suggest that you hold off on the controversial "capitalize each word" part of the bot, until the matter has been discussed somewhere central (eg. WP:VP) and there is a clear consensus to incorporate the new style as a prominent and unambiguous guideline at WP:DEFAULTSORT, that all editors are expected to follow. Thanks, Hqb (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was thinking at this point to. I plan to file a Bugzilla request about this. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on displaying time since last edit

Hi, you weighed in on the "display time since last edit on article" discussion at the Village pump. I have now started a straw poll on the subject at WP:Village pump (proposals)#Straw poll. Your opinion would be appreciated. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

Can you explain this edit? There seems to be no point adding a DEFAULTSORT with a parameter identical to the page name, which is its default collation key. Ian Spackman (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't identical... the capitalization of the second word is different, per the guidelines at WP:CAT#Using sort keys. See also #Bot defaultsort and User:DrilBot/S#Sort. Hope that helps! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But there is only one other sane capitalisation that I can think of and I cannot imagine that it would be a different article. What I see on my watchlist—this is only one example—tempts me to coin the term botspam. Sorry! Ian Spackman (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the current guideline, the first letter of each word should be capitalized in a DEFAULTSORT, because MediaWiki's category system always lists lowercase letters after uppercase letters when alphabetizing. The DEFAULTSORT key isn't shown in the categories. I'm afraid I don't really understand the first sentence of your last post... the DEFAULTSORT key is in line with current guidelines, even though it is different from the article title. Without this DEFAULTSORT, "Irpinian dialect" would be sorted after an article called something like "Irpinian Do...", even though "di" should clearly be listed before "Do". Does that make sense? (You can also hide bot edits from your watchlist pretty easily if there are too many; there's a button on the page and an option in your preferences) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So how did you decide whether the ‘d’ should be upper or lower case? Or ae you saying that sorting should be case insensitive? In that case I would agree—but surely it would be more efficient to fix the code that orders catefory items rather than doing a couple of million bot edits? Ian Spackman (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For consistent sorting, the guidelines say that the first letter of each word should be capitalized in a DEFAULTSORT and all of the rest should be lowercase; if this is done on all applicable articles, things should work fine. Yes, it is a lot of articles... although I actually hadn't though that the MediaWiki engine itself might be able to be changed to fix that. I'll look into filing a Bugzilla request when I have a chance. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bug when editing references

This diff shows a problem with named references. Rettetast (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC) one more. Rettetast (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... that's new. I'll look into it and deactivate the reference-related changes in the meantime. Thank you! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Image news

I thought you were gonna do it I thought maybe you might Ooh! A shiny.

Hey DrilNoth. "Turmoil in the Featured and Valued picture processes" was discussed at the Signpost. Should this be mentioned on the WP:WPIM message board? – Quadell ^(talk) 16:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No reason. :) – Quadell ^(talk) 00:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I'll do it! :) Sorry, just didn't have much time when you asked. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

One might wonder why, if I have the time to make ridiculous CSS image macros, I don't have the time to add a summary notice. But motivation's a funny thing, you know? (Shiny!) – Quadell ^(talk) 01:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of that, I like your images. Especially that DrilBot one. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably old news, but...

This edit broke one of the links at the very end of the article. This is clearly a bug in the script, since it shouldn't be messing with link targets. No doubt this is a known issue (the edit was in March), but I'm letting you know just in case it isn't. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep; that was from Formatter. That script is mostly obsolete at this point because of AutoEd, in which I think that this bug has been fixed. Thanks for letting me know! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of press kit photograph

Hi Drilnorth,

You have queried the validity of photograph Image:Doug Macleod Promo Photo.jpg, and I would like to resolve the issue quickly.

I could obtain alternative images to use in the article about this artist, but believe that this is the most appropriate image to use and uploaded it on the principle that it was freely available in the press kit from the artist's own web site.

Ideally, I would like to retain this information with suitable justifications if possible, but firstly would you confirm that a press kit image can be defined as free-issue? This doesn't seem to be covered by the guidelines.

Thanks for your help,

Versificator (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally, images of living people can be replaced with free images (e.g., photographs taken by a Wikipedian who then uploads them under a free license). Images from a press kit are copyrighted unless it specifically says that the pictures and media are licensed under a free license; the current image description indicates that the image is copyrighted. The copyright license tag there reads:

"Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. If this is not the case for this image, a rationale should be provided proving that the image provides information beyond simple identification or showing that this image is difficult to replace by a free-licensed equivalent. Commercial third-party reusers of this image should consider whether their use is in violation of the subject's publicity rights."

Since the image is promotional, I doubt that it is considered a free image, and since the subject is a living person it can be replaced by a free image. Does that clarify things? Feel free to ask me if you have any more questions about this. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please moderate the Regine Velasquez page. So many false claims, there are no citations.

So many users in that page keep on putting false claims about Regine Velasquez' achievements and talent, to the point that they make up fake 'achievements' about her so-called 'reign'. Velasquez is not famous all over the world, she has not sold one million records all over Asia. They keep sensationalizing her page by writing over hyped and false claims such as having a 'palatial house', albums selling over 10X platinum, that Regine rejected the Miss Saigon role, and so much more. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.22.195 (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems to have been partially dealt with since AllyUnion semi-protected the page. If there are still issues, you should probably ask about it here... I don't tend to get involved in disputes in an administrative position, but you could probably find someone else there pretty quickly. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Actually, the Regine Velasquez page is one of the most senationalized articles for a Filipino artist page due to her fans. If you look at the talk page of her article, several users even change and disrupt the comments left by concerned editors about the hoax facts that her fans put, such as this user, who defends Regine at all costs. I tried to restore the comments from other editors this user deleted, and yet I was given a warning for vandalism. Thank you for listening. 124.104.22.195 (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I try not to get involved in this kind of dispute; if you ask at WP:AN or WP:ANI, somebody should take a look fairly quickly. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

fyi

[12] -- User:Docu

An idea

Hey Drilnoth. As you may know, I've got a toolserver account and am now tinkering with AWB code as well (though Reedy has to come along and improve the code I write before pushing it live). Anyhow, I thought I might try to combine the two, and create collaborative lists of find/replaces (basic level). IIRC this doesn't quite apply to you because you override the default interface and write them directly, but I thought you might be able to offer some advice. Here's the plan:

• Host machine-readable lists of find/replace regexes on the toolserver.
• Have at least one for checkwiki. Maybe split into 100% good, 80-100% good and 60-80% good (UNIX repository style).
• Let users add to or amend them (probably not create new lists though), either from a toolserver page (easier) or from AWB (better?)
• Give them some sort of pretentious name ("pods" is my current favourite). Optional.
• Add a button to the find/replace interface of AWB letting people enter the url of a list.
• Parse the list, either adding to the main table thing (easier to code) or have a separate checkbox list - add/remove/enable/disable list. (better).

What would the advantages be? Better regexes, presumably, also, I find that I write regexes for the CW error I'm working on. Meanwhile, I could be fixing the page for other things as well. I suppose it ends up not too dis-similar from RegexTypoFix. Sorry to have taken up some much space on your userpage, I was sort of working it out as I went along! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't completely understand this (I don't really know the inner workings of the toolserver or AWB's code), but it sounds interesting. Basically having a custom list of replacements for the CHECKWIKI list which can be used by AWB? I don't really override the default interface... I just use a custom module so that I can deactivate some of the general fixes, but if the normal gen. fixes could be deactivated and a separate list specifically for working on CHECKWIKI could be made, that would be nice. I'm sorry if I'm completely missing the point though. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, per convention I'm just going to keep saying it over and over again until you do get the point (just kidding!). Basically it would be a block 1) Find-Replace ("Normal settings") importer/exporter 2) Where these blocks could be compiled by the community. Hope that clarifies things. You needn't leave any more talkbacks, by the way, I'll check back here. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I can see having something like the typo fixing. That would actually be kind of nice... then one wouldn't need to use a custom module solely so that one could deactivate the FixDateOrdinalsAndOf change which bots shouldn't be making. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, ca depend. I was thinking more about extending functionality rather than curtailing it, working on the idea that if I come up with regexes to fix #34 and you come up with regexes to fix #74 we can share them and fix both at the same time. Hopefully that's what you gathered from the above; I really need to write this down coherently somewhere. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha (although FixDateOrdinalsAndOf should really be turned off). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WT:FRONDS. Sorry about that. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

DRAMA report

Great to see you're volunteering for that - though I have little weight attached to my name in Signpost circles for good reason - my sole own personal involvement is currently 15 minutes a week, writing up a proper "bots approved this week" section for the technology report. I had been adding a sentence giving ideas of bots in discussion (much less complete than your own, admittedly). If you're going to include those in your report every week (great, please do!), then I'll put in a crosslink ("A number of other bots are currently in discussion; you can read more about them in the Discussion report."), shall I? You might like to make it reciprocal, whatever fits really. Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My plan is to include it weekly; having a cross-link would be great! I can do the same for the "recently approved" list. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/Technology_report was what I wrote I saw your bit. I'm rapidly running out of time to do anything now (and that I have is to be full of fronds stuff) - so can I ask a favour of you: to reword the material "Still in discussion... orphaned talk pages"? It would be great if you could reach a level of suitable overlap without vast amounts of redundancy (oh, and add that cross link). Thanks. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris Toshok's mug

Note: Discussion relates to File:Chris-Toshok.jpg. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Drilnoth,

I'd like to get Chris' image sanctioned. He's pretty clear about being willing to let it be used on wikipedia. I can have him confirm via email or post a comment somewhere or something else.

Extended content

He's got a blog at the domain squeedlyspooch.com. Checking the WHOIS registry at whois.joker.com for that domain gives me this: $ whois -h whois.joker.com squeedlyspooch.com | head -2 domain: squeedlyspooch.com owner: Chris Toshok Further, squeedlyspooch.com resolves to 199.181.107.182: $ host squeedlyspooch.com squeedlyspooch.com has address 199.181.107.182 squeedlyspooch.com mail is handled by 10 still.hungry.com. the address 199.181.107.182 is part of the 199.181.107.0/24 subnet, which was registered by Toshok in 1994: $ whois -h whois.arin.net 199.181.107.182 OrgName: The Hungry Programmers OrgID: THEHUN-3 Address: CENSORED BY CJ City: CENSORED BY CJ StateProv: CENSORED BY CJ PostalCode: CENSORED BY CJ Country: CENSORED BY CJ NetRange: 199.181.107.0 - 199.181.107.255 CIDR: 199.181.107.0/24 NetName: HUNGRY-COM NetHandle: NET-199-181-107-0-1 Parent: NET-199-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Assignment NameServer: AGONY.HUNGRY.COM NameServer: NS.ISP.NET Comment: RegDate: 1994-07-26 Updated: 1998-04-22 RTechHandle: CT56-ARIN RTechName: Toshok, Chris RTechPhone: CENSORED BY CJ RTechEmail: CENSORED BY CJ

If you feel that this sufficiently links Chris Toshok to the domain and address space above, I'll get confirmation via the email address listed in the ARIN WHOIS registry. If you have a preferred means of verifying that the conversation listed on the image page was indeed authentic and that he did indeed mean to release it into the public domain, I would be happy to do so in your preferred way.

Cheers,

C.J. Cjcollier (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(I've put most of your post in a collapse box to save space) Okay; thanks. To confirm image permission, you should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. I understand that this is a pain, but there are reasons. The most important thing is that his comment (as you transcribed it) doesn't explicity release the image into the public domain; you simply assumed that from the context. Legally, I don't believe that it has actually been released into the public domain or under a free license (I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure). The other important thing is that we simply need to take your word about what you say he said... although I believe that you accurately copied it, there are some users who falsely claim permission by doing things like this, and when it comes to copyright we need to stay on the safe side. As I said, I understand that this is a bit of a pain, but image copyright & permissions are one of the most complicated areas of Wikipedia policy, and right now (even with the evidence that you presented above), we cannot be sure about this, although I don't strongly doubt this, either. It is very important that people who release their images into the public domain or under a free license understand what that really means; for example, public domain means that an image can be used without attribution and for commercial purposes (the latter is also required for all free licenses allowed by Wikipedia). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm getting on it. I asked him yesterday to send me an email from the same address he uses for his ARIN POC. I couldn't find a PGP key for him, though, so you can't be certain it's him if I ever get an email confirmation. I'll read through the requesting doc you pasted above. Thanks.

C.J.
Cjcollier (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC).

If you can have him E-mail the permission information using the process which I described above, that should be verification enough. He'd need to send it to the Wikipedia permissions list... not to you to have you send it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Restoring images

A stalker chimes in...

Hey Drilnoth, I recently deleted File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg incorrectly because I thought it was db-author, and the uploader requested that I restore it. I tried to restore it, but it seems that all that was restored wa sthe file description—the file itself is gone. Do you know how to restore it fully? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it for you, Rjanag. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell; I so like having talk page watchers. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

(concerning this edit –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 04:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

I hadn't caught that Hekerui had accidentally switched the dates; thanks for noticing and fixing that. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help; I'm guessing that Gavin.collins just switched the wrong one by accident when he originally tried to fix them. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Imagemap

So, your bot did it too, it has also happened to me, it seems something is broken with the AWB, did you already report it? Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC) rev4477

I did report it; right now I'm just skipping pages with RegEx \<image ?map in them. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Bug/Fix in AutoEd

See Wikipedia talk: AutoEd. It seems to be moderately serious for non-Firefox users. Plastikspork (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pinging my talk page about this; my apologies for introducing the error. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No Problem and Thanks. However, could I get you to double check your changes? I think you may have missed 'basic.js' and when I ran the diffs on your latest changes to the other presets it appears you may have changed more than the 'document.write'. You may have been correcting another error, but it wasn't clear. Thanks again. Plastikspork (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! I think that that one didn't save properly. I'll look at the others and fix that. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, should be fixed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for the quick fix. When you have a chance, it would be great if you could have a look at the discussion about 'unicodify.js'. I was able to merge CharlotteWeb's suggested features, fixed a couple minor bugs, and regrouped things to try to improve the speed. I should really look into the admin thing so I can commit changes myself. My only worry is that it will require more time than I have to spend. Although I don't believe there is any strict time requirement for admins. Thanks again. Plastikspork (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no time requirements for admins... you just have access to some more tools. Actually, if you'd like, I can create this page if you'd like... –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Sure, in that case, I would be willing to accept the nomination. Thanks. Plastikspork (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'll create the nomination sometime today. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Thank you again, I accept the nomination. Plastikspork (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent; let's hope that this goes well! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My nominee is nominating already! They grow up so fast! – Quadell ^(talk) 22:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

US GPO pix

Note: Refers to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 17#File:Obamaportrait.jpg. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about being less than helpful at first -- I was tired and cranky (as opposed to tired and emotional, in which state I have not yet had the good fortune to edit :-). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand, it happens to all of us. Thank you for your assistance with that. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sprite can 2009

Moved to bottom of page at #Sprite can image. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Gadget addition without discussion

Hi Drilnoth, you have added lefteditlinks.js as a gadget. You have not discussed this addition following the long established process and as prominently requested on MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition and on Wikipedia:Gadget. It is important to have a discussion and code evaluation before putting gadgets online as they represent an essential part of the Wikipedia user interface and we have to make sure that gadgets do not break the system under a wide variety of browsers, operating systems, and skins. Please see also the minimal requirements for gadgets on Wikipedia:Gadget#General criteria for Gadgets. I have reverted your addition for now, please suggest this gadget on Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals. Cacycle (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought that skipping the discussion would be appropriate since it was discussed heavily at the VP, with an obvious consensus that whether the change was made or not a gadget should be enabled to allow for the other version. Is more discussion really needed? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides, that page gets almost no discussion or code review from what I've seen. Testing by users at the VP discussion showed that it works on most all browsers and I tested every skin. The code is basically identical to that used gloabally on the German Wikipedia except for the addition of 5px of padding. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a different crowd at the VP that not necessarily has the technical expertise needed to evaluate gadgets. While this gadget seems to be relatively uncontroversial, I think it is important to follow the established process in order to not set a bad precedence for the next more exotic and controversial creations of other users :-) Just give it a week there or so, no need to rush this. Cacycle (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any rush, I just thought that since the code is straight from the German Wikipedia's de:MediaWiki:Common.js it wouldn't need any additional code review. My apologies if I was incorrect in this; I'd believed that there had been sufficient discussion and technical review. I will start a section about this. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#Lefteditlinks. My apologies. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for causing this additional trouble, but I really worry about script-kiddies adding their newest creations in an uncontrolled manner as it happened in the early days of the gadget feature. I do not have any problems with this script in general and will comment on Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals during the next days. Cacycle (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Understandable; I hadn't thought of that. Once again, my apologies for causing any trouble.

Do you know of any way to make gadget proposals page more visible in general? It seems like so many requests there never get any response. Gadgets can be very good so the approval process should be more visible if possible. Perhaps discussion at VPT would make more sense? (I'm not asking for this script specifically, just in general... e.g., I've seen a few others that could make good gadgets but haven't said anything because I'm not sure if I should take the time if nobody else will comment). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

HMS Penelope photo should have no copyright

Refers to File:HMS Peneolpe.jpg –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

the photo should not be copyrighted as the photo should be public it appeared in a book dedicated to the hms penelopes crew and most of the families of the crew have copies of the photo its what made the ship famous and led to the book hms pepperpot the association has it and i sent it to ww2 cruisers they will be posting the photo later in the week the photo was taken in gibraltar between the 10th and 13th 1942 but i will contact mike of the association and ask where the photo came from and who owns it i have loads of photos of the ship they have been sent to me by many people for the tribute video i made i will come back with more info on the picture and thanks for contacting me --Ciaran Carson 01:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsie100 (talk • contribs)

Okay, there seem to be a few things going on here. First, all images need a copyright tag, as described at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Some copyright tags actually indicate that an image is "public domain" or licensed under a "free license"; see that page for more details. You should find an appropriate copyright tag to add to the image.

Second, you need to provide evidence of permission. Just because the photo is in a publicly available book and many people have an image doesn't mean that it is free to use under the copyright law. If the photo was taken in 1942 and it had a copyright notice (it probably did), then you need to contact the image's copyright holder (I'd try either A) the person who actually took the image, if they're still alive, or B) the company which published the book that it is in). The copyright holder would then need to send E-mail confirmation of permission using OTRS, as described at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.

Wikipedia's image policies are very complicated because of the legal issues involved; my apologies if this caused any difficulty. Feel free to ask me if you have any other questions or concerns! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Galang.jpg

Image File:Galang.jpg was deleted without discussion or review. See: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 8. Can we please restore it?--Knulclunk (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It was given the full seven days for discussion at WP:FFD, after which time if an administrator can determine consensus they can close the discussion as either "keep" or "delete". In this case, there were only two people commenting, so I simply determined consensus as best I could... in this case, I was more convinced by Σxplicit's argument for deletion because it seems more in line with the non-free content criteria. Additionally, the rationale which had been provided for the image was on the weaker side. I looked at the article which the image was used in and I really don't feel like it was adding very much to the article other than to decorate the page. If you wish to pursue further discussion about the image's deletion, you could take the image to deletion review so that the community can take another look at it; I don't mind. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sprite can image

Refers to File:Sprite can 2009.jpg –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I took the picture myself. How could there b permission involved?--WildMIKE123 (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue on this image is not related to permission, but copyright. You need to choose an image copyright tag from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags to add to this image. If you took the picture, you may choose an appropriate free license or public domain licensing tag. For example, if you want to have this image usable under the same license as your text contributions to Wikipedia are, you can use the following template by adding this exact code to the image description page: {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0|migration=redundant}}. This would mean that you, the copyright holder, allow the image to be used under two licenses: The GFDL and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 license. There are many different licensing choices if you took the picture; this is just one of the most commonly used licenses.

Image licensing is one of the most complicated areas of Wikipedia policy because of the legal issues involved; if you have any other questions or concerns, feel free to ask me! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

• Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
• News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
• Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Great job on the DRAMA report! Very useful. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't get in quite as much as I wanted (limited time, with new bot features to test out and still more of the neverending image deletion backlogs), but I hope to do better next time. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, nice job. Thanks!--ragesoss (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you going do it again this week too, Drilnoth? I do hope so. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 15:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the plan; I'm going to try to write it weekly unless I'm too pressed for time. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could demarcate the new items? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 16:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea; can do. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

2 Deleated Photos

Dear Drilnoth,

I noticed that you deleated two photos today. They are Princefranzofbavaria.JPG and 51b2 1.JPG. I contacted the persons who created these photos, a photo atelier owner and family member of the subject, and BOTH of these men confirmed for me that the files have been released under a "free license" into the public domain. The creators also permit anyone to reuse the image for any reason, including commercial purposes. One of them even took the time from his busy schedule to correct the appropriate tags. Still you have deleted it. I really do not known why this have been done. I understand that IP has to be protected (I work on protecting intellectual property with the WTO), but from legal stand point the creators of the image and I have done everything we could to show that the photos have been released by to the public domain. Wikipedia was legally protected, as the images were in fact given to you by the creators!! I believe you were wrong to delete these and sadly in the end your actions only hurt this encyclopedia. Regards from London. Mariaflores1955 (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As Angr said at the deletion debates, we need to recieve an E-mail from the copyright holder(s) in order to confirm the permission; because of the legal issues involved, we can't just take peoples' word that permission has been given... it's been faked enough before that we can't take chances. There is a process outlined at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission about how to go about formally asking for permission and submitting it to Wikipedia so that we can be sure that the copyright holder wanted to release the image.

I'm really sorry that you need to jump through these hoops to verify the permission, but there are just too many false claims of permission. I'm not doubting what you said; it's just that we need to verify the permission from the copyright holder themselves, not from the uploader, to ensure that they really understand and agree with releasing the images under a free license. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the barnstar, I appreciate it. I had some time to kill today, so I figured I clear out the backlog which had been sitting there for a while. The task was one of the duties I claimed I'd work on at my RfA and I try to keep an eye on it. It goes quickly when you got a few films to watch on the side! Hopefully the backlog doesn't get too big again soon (although the size reduction category is quite large...). Thanks again! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was actually just reading that. Of course I had to notice this after I finished all these files. Oh well, there will be plenty of future requests to fix. Now comes the fun part of attempting to get it to work on the first try in my monobook. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fronds

Oops, didn't I subst it? I certainly meant to. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 20:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

• Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
• News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Greenslopes Synagogue and Maronite Catholic Church images

Actually they're not missing their copyright information, which is that I am the copyright holder and release them into the public domain. Does your bot need some fine-tuning, perhaps? Masalai (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a copyright tag. When Drilnoth placed the notice, there was no copyright information, but since you have fixed the problem, it's now fine. Thanks again, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What Quadell said. :) Also, that wasn't done by bot; I checked it by hand. Thanks for fixing it! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: File copyright problem with File:Prozor Fortress seen from town.JPG

Is it o.k. now? --Kebeta (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine now. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Great; it looks good now. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for warning! --Kebeta (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Intrusions

Hi, I acknowledge your comments :

Thanks!

Hi! Thanks for adding references to (among others) S. J. Samartha's article from Lynn de Silva's article. I'm glad to finally see such an article on Wikipedia! Regards, Ldesilva (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem coming up for two articles which I created earlier. V. E. Christopher and Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church (AELC). Someone keeps intruding into AELC and removes V. E. Christopher as Bishop of AELC and inserts Busi Suneel Bhanu. Similarly in V. E. Christopher the name Busi Suneel Bhanu is added in succession list.

No references in support are given for these intrusions. Not even one. Hence I tried to revert the edits more than once. The intruder is probably a novice to Wikipedia. Kindly see what can be done.--Pradeep (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're having trouble with a problematic editor and discussion on the talk page isn't working (or they aren't responding to your comments), you may want to mention something at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; I try not to get involved in an administrator position in disputes. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: File copyright problem with File:Sebastien grainger and the mountains.JPG

I have added a fair use rationale. Is it okay? --Paperoverman (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You added a fair use rationale but not a copyright tag, but now with the rationale that was easy enough to guess that I added {{non-free album cover}} to it for you. It should be good now, thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Should I remove the fair use rationale, so that only the {{non-free album cover}} remains or should I just leave it as is it? Thanks again! --Paperoverman (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Both are needed, so you should leave it as-is. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What Quadell said. :) Each image needs an image copyright tag and, if it is a non-free image, a fair-use rationale. The image currently has both and removing one would be problematic. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Triplecrownftw

Go ahead and delete it, if you like. I only uploaded it to replace the main image on WP:TRIPLE. Durova rode by on her hummingbird and switched it back. Oh well. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, I'll just let the tag run its course and it'll be deleted in ~7 days. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Kristina Davis

I put a source for the picture of the current Kristina Davis on General Hospital. Don't delete the picture. Jester66 (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 25#File:Lexie-gh-kristina.jpg to avoid discussing the same thing in two different locations. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I put up the website for the picture. 04:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jester66 (talk • contribs)

Request withdrawn; thanks for taking the time to address my concerns. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 04:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

So Mr. Admin, Wiki-knowledge test ;) Is there some guideline about adding/not-adding foreing language reviews to video games on the English Wiki? On WP:VG/S I can only find a checklist on whether some such sources are reliable, but the review box doesn't contain these magazines and I wonder whether such reviews should be added at all, since the authors reviewed a dubbed version - OTOH it's the exact same game just in another language and having more reviews doesn't hurt, right? However, would one then say "magazine X reviewed the Y-language version of game Z, and found ..." I haven't looked at reviews in detail, just wanted some clarity. I recently found two German reviews of Planescape: Torment from two game magazines on the net and was surprised, because the game is so old. I have saved the links somewhere. Also, what should one argue to get one of these sources approved for the checklist (I ask because I wonder why a magazine that is quite popular here isn't approved)? Hekerui (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, my feeling on this is that A) If the magazine or website isn't listed at WP:VG/S, or is listed without an "X" or checkmark next to it, more research needs to be done into reliability. That's pretty simple. B) If the source is of questionable reliability, ask at WP:RS/N. C) If the source is determined to be reliable, add the review in. If you can't speak the language, then just say that it was reviewed and add the score if possible; otherwise, put in full normal information as you would for other reviews.

Now the question is: Is it reliable? I've actually dealt with this before (briefly)... see Talk:Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate#CZ ref. If you can't speak the language in question, my feeling is that you first need to look at how the site or magazine is setup. Look around a bit and see if it looks professional. Try finding something that could be editorial standards or a list of actual staff, rather than just site members. If things are pointing towards reliability, ask at WP:RS/N and contact a few of the users listed at Wikipedia:Translators available#German-to-English to see if they can get a better feel of the site/magazine.

If discussions between these locations determine that the source is reliable, then it can pretty safely use it in the article and it can be added to the list. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. So I guess you mean I should, if I were to add a review from a source judged "good", add the rating and whatever comment in the article text. I'm going to read the reviews (it's only two for Planescape) and see whether they have anything interesting to say at all. And thanks for the translation tips lol, I now got myself Babel boxes to avoid confusion in the future :) Hekerui (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help; I look forward to seeing any new information. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:P-61-1NO 42-5488 in colour.jpg

<<snip>>Thank you for uploading File:P-61-1NO 42-5488 in colour.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page <<snip>>

This picture was taken by an employee ot the US Government - more than 60 years ago - unfortunitly, when you post a picture and forget to add the tag line (Work of a US Government Employee) theire is no easy way of adding it or fixing the problem (short of reloading the picture) - so do what you want either fixit or delete it...btw, if you read the info box under the picture, you will see the correct classification "work of a US Government employee correctly listed and posted) Davegnz (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You can just edit the image description like any other page, by clicking the "edit this page" button... you don't need to reupload it. Anyway, I actually have a few concerns with this image. The first is that it doesn't have a copyright tag; this can be easily resolved. The more important issue is that it doesn't have a source. Right now, it says that it was taken by "a US Government employee [...] during active military service." More information than this is needed, because right now, we just need to take your word on this (and there are enough people who make claims like this, falsely, that we can't completely trust such statements without more information, unfortunately). What we need to know is where you found the image. Did you find it on a website? If so, what is the URL of the page where the image is used? Was it scanned from a book? Did you take it (if you are a US government employee)? If you can provide such source information, the copyright tag should be able to be determined quite easily. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

1) this is a World War 2 aircraft - this picture was taken more than 60 years ago and the aircraft has long been scrapped - it never reached civilian use. The picture comes from the National Archive. Davegnz (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the additional information, but that's still just a description (although a good one), not a source (and being at least 60 years old doesn't make something public domain). I searched around for the image at http://www.archives.gov/ but couldn't find anything. Take a look at Help:Image page#Source and author... there are two examples of good sources there. If you could write the source information for this image in a similar format to those two examples, and add an image copyright tag to the page (if it was created by someone while they were working for the US government, one of those listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/USA may be the most appropriate). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Rescaled images CSD

I left a comment after your proposed rewording to the rescaled images being deleted at any time (instead of waiting a week). I agree with this idea, and mentioned my support. It looks like it is going to get buried with the other discussions currently going on, so maybe a straw poll needs to be started? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 16:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A straw poll might make sense. I'll get one set up later today. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I replied there, hopefully it gets changed. As a side note, would it be possible to create a script that adds {{Move to Commons}} to the top of an image page? I know you have a script that actually lets you move the image to Commons, but I usually don't move images. I run into a lot of images while reviewing GANs or other articles and am constantly tagging them to be moved over. If it is too hard or if you don't have the time, then don't worry about it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

FurMe has this in its "tags" feature, but I'll add it into FileScripts also; thanks for mentioning that. (although moving images only takes ~5 minutes each anyway). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know I'm lazy. Usually I'm tagging it while I'm in the middle of reviewing an article so I don't want to have to upload five images. In addition, when I'm reviewing an article I mention it to the article's contributors so that they may consider helping move their images to Commons, and hopefully help with other images there. For Commons, I mainly stick with the images I take, and image permissions. Anyway, thanks for helping out, I appreciate it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Lou Gehrig stamp.png

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Lou Gehrig stamp.png. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  JGHowes  ^talk 22:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

discussion report

Hi! I'm just checking to see if you plan to do the discussion report this week... if you do, there are several tips on the tipline about various discussions. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I do indeed plan to do it; thanks for mentioning the tipline for me. I'll be working on it shortly. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

foxtrotfarscape deletion

Drilnoth, I don't understand why you deleted File:Foxtrotfarscape.png. I would much prefer to have that image in the FoxTrot article than the other one, if we are indeed limited to only one. Powers ^T 13:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Because at the deletion discussion, consensus seemed to be for deleting, although there were indeed comments that the other one could be deleted instead. I don't really care which one is used... if you prefer to have this one, you could nominate the other at FFD with the stipulation that if it is deleted I will restore the other one, which I'd be happy to do... I just don't want to do an out of process deletion since the other one wasn't itself nominated. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I was hoping that maybe we could have just removed the other one from the article and had it deleted as orphaned, but I didn't want to do that before the deletion discussion was concluded. Powers ^T 13:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally, orphaning fair use images to bypass a deletion discussion is frowned upon. As I said, I'm completely neutral on this and would be happy to restore this image if consensus is to use the other one, but I don't want anybody to come complaining that it was done out of process, either. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this just seems needlessly complex, mainly because setting up the nomination is a pain. =) Powers ^T 14:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, a snag -- the wikipedia strip is used on another article as well, so I can't nominate it for deletion. Powers ^T 14:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Would the other strip work in this other article, or would that be a problem? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The other article is Wikipedia in popular culture, so no. =) Powers ^T 14:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Well, I guess that that kind of settles the issue unless you want to remove current strip from the foxtrot article... since it wouldn't be deleted, just used elsewhere, I'd be willing to restore the deleted one to use instead. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Powers ^T 14:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

 Restored, sounds good. My apologies if I caused any trouble. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it was complicated. Powers ^T 15:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Your bot removed links from section titles on the "1908 in poetry" page

Your bot looks very useful, but would you please have the bot avoid doing that delinking in any "[year] in poetry" pages? I think it did so because you programmed it to remove multiple links to the same page, but year-in-poetry pages are different from regular articles, where readers who are reading through the entire article might get annoyed by the unnecessary repetition of links. In these pages, which are lists, almost no readers are going to want to search all over the page to find the link to an article on poetry from a particular nation -- they'll find it useful near where they're looking -- Indian poetry in English in the Indian subsection of the "Works published in English" section, as well as next to the name of an Indian poet in the "Deaths" or "Births" section (see 1920 in poetry for a good example of this -- a page that still only covers a small part of its subject, meaning that as the article expands it will be even harder to find wikilinks if they're limited to one per page). Since the year-in-poetry pages are constantly being expanded, sometimes the links are initially in lines next to each other -- something that will likely change as more listings are added in alphabetical order. So multiple links and section-title links are very useful, whether or not some style guideline has caught up with the practice or not. Could you avoid having the bot change these pages? I hope this isn't too confusing. -- Reconsideration (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yah, the section header changes are a tad problematic at times. I'll try to tell the bot not to do this until a fix can be added in AWB itself. Thanks for letting me know about this! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Reconsideration (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Count_header_link_removal_as_a_MOS_fix Fixed], as soon as a new SVN snapshot is available for me to download. Thanks for reporting this!