User talk:AFigureOfBlue/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:AFigureOfBlue. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

The following code will be needed for my WP:CHECKWIKI over the next few days:

{{!-}} <!--NOTE: Templates allow proper wikitext table formatting within template-->
{{!}} colspan="#" {{!}}AAA
{{!-}}
{{!}} colspan="#" {{!}}BBB
}}

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, AFigureOfBlue. You have new messages at Template talk:Neverwinter Nights.
Message added 07:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Why driloth, from my computer, I type in Eric de Kolb in google or http and I see the Eric de Kolb Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia Link.

However, yesterday I was at a friends house and I went into their internet and typed ERic de kolb, and the Eric de Kolb Wikipedia Encyclopedia link didn't show up, just the stuff about the copyright and Wikimedia Commons. I even typed in Eric de Kolb wikipedia and the encylopedia link wasn't there.

Today, I used the computer at the UPS store as I had to print out my permissions letter, and lo and behold, the Eric de Kolb Wikipedia - The free encyclopedia link was not there. Just the WikiMedia stuff and Commons.

(bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Hmm... weird. Well, I can't really help you about that... as I said Google uses a very complicated method to determine what appears where on the list. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Here I am, bragging to everyone about it, and it can't be found unless you open Wikipedia and do a search. If you go to a different computer (some place outside) other than where you are now, if you wouldn't mind, type in Eric de Kolb and see if the encyclopedia link show. (Bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

I checked both of the computers in my house, and it came up as 4th on Google both times (running Firefox 3, I don't know if that matters). Who knows? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, like you said, "who knows?". Anyway, I just discovered something interesting. Type in http://cosmicbeautytips.com/smokeyeyes/news/Eric-de-Kolb.html and look what pops up!! Did someone you know do this??? (BStet--EricdeKolb (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

I've had no relation with that website. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, I still don't know why my some of my images aren't in my gallery. I'm tired so I probably won't be doing much tonight. (Bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Well, I think that almost all of the images which you uploaded are in the gallery. There are a few in commons:Category:Eric de Kolb paintings, rather than commons:Category:Eric de Kolb, so are those the ones that you're missing? Those two categories really need to be combined. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No those aren't the ones I am talking about, one is BlueberryBrain.jpg (or JPG, I can't remember, another is PsychedelicGreenMan.JPG, and the rest I don't remember - have a nice eve. (Bstet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricdeKolb (talk • contribs) 00:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... well, I can't find them. Maybe there was a bug when they were being uploaded? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll worry about it tomorrow. Have a great night! (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

We're overlapping and edit-conflicting here. I think some of your (and maybe my) edits were lost in the shuffle. I'm going to back out for a few minutes and let you take the wheel. :) – Quadell ^(talk) 14:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! We're just too eager to do this. :) I'll just be another minute or two to fix the edit link and then I'll be taking a break (got to do some stuff in real life). Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Done for a few hours; I've fixed the section headers. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Think it's ready for a go? :) BOZ (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to do a little more first, probably tomorrow. I have some sources that haven't been used yet. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Great - I can be patient. :) BOZ (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you cleaned up after my mess there, so thank you. Honestly, part of the problem is stylistic - the article should be using hyphens instead of en dashes - but I should have checked the diff more closely. I'm not sure if there's any way for the tool to help sort such things out - dashes are surprisingly hard to get right, and in fact the main reason i switched from my previous autognoming script is that it didn't get dashes right. I did trip over one genuine bug, though - CodeFixer+ mode will make changes inside valid links. There are times when it's useful to do that, but usually it's the wrong thing to do, so it's probably best if the tool didn't do it. Thanks for reading; if you respond here, I'll see it without the need for the template. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that CodeFixer was causing the dash problem (it actually shouldn't be changing any spaces other than those within HTML tags and before &ltref> tags); did you run WP:FORMATTER on the same edit? I know that that one has some bugs with dashes, and I see that it is in your monobook.js file.

Anyway, could you give me a link for CodeFixerPlus editing inside links? It shouldn't be doing anything right now other than what the standard CodeFixer does and converting HTML tables to wikitables. Were both versions causing the problem, or just CodeFixerPlus? Thanks.

That having been said, CodeFixer does not have any way to separate text in links from text outside of links. In my hundreds of edits using it, however, I've only encountered a few cases where it would have broken an external link (the changes which caused that have now been fixed, however), and I've never encountered a problem with internal links. None of the edits that it makes really change things that are in most links other than to unicodify elements (which doesn't harm internal links, but can cause trouble for some external links. However, the most common change which would harm external links—replacing & with just &—has been deactivated) and remove unicode control characters (which so far has had no effect on internal or external links whatsoever). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked back over this, and it appears that it was, in fact, WP:FORMATTER that caused the spacing issues. Unfortunately, it doesn't produce a separate diff or edit summary, so I assumed it was CodeFixer+ that had done it. If you say the link-changing issue is rare, I believe you - and I do understand the difficulty of mixing regular expressions with bracket-balancing code - but on the page that caused all this fuss, Formatter changed two separate links - one that had a problem (using a character entity reference inside an internal link, which works but isn't very portable) and one interwiki link that didn't. It's up to you whether you think it's worth changing, but I thought I'd inform you about it. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand... Formatter can be a bit problematic that way because, even if a diff is shown, it's very hard to see whitespace changes. I hope to merge most of its current fixes into CodeFixer at some point, removing those errors in the process. I certainly think that it is worth preventing CodeFixer from making in-link edits other than those which are always OK (unicode control characters and, I think, character entities in internal links), but this is difficult to do and, thus far, I really don't have much experience with RegEx. Thanks for mentioning this, however. I'll keep it on my to-do list. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you know User:Raven1977?

I reverted some changes you made to how articles about subjects with Arabic names were sorted on April 5th. I provided an explanation in the edit summary, and I removed the erroneous {{DEFAULTSORT}}s that mislead you. On April 14th Raven1977 changed those articles back.

Since I removed the erroneous {{DEFAULTSORT}} it seems they were trying to protect the integrity of your edits. I thought my edit summary explained my edit properly. Geo Swan (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(I fixed some italics in your post). I've never met Raven1977 before... your explanation was good, so it is indeed interesting that s/he changed them back. How many was it? Was it just those which you manually reverted, you was it the entire set of AWB edits that I made? Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think they reverted all the articles on my watchlist that I addressed on April 5th. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... okay. Have you asked them about this? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did ask them to explain their edits. Thanks for clarifying that you don't know them. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd stop by for a moment. I gave the "permissions" letter to Mrs. de Kolb, so she can look it over before signing.

See you soon!! (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

Great! I hope that all goes well. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Driloth,

The permissions letter is approved, and tomorrow I will have Mrs. de Kolb sign it. I was going to have it scanned and then sent to the permissions-commons address. I guess though that I could fax the signed document to my personal computer and then send the letter to the commons-permissions via pdf format.

Whatcha think? (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

That sounds good. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Drilnoth. In case it is of interest, I have put semi-protection on this article for two months. This is due to the long-term socking issues that were last investigated at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcmenal. Let me know if this is a problem. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay; thanks for letting me know. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not I think you should use your administrator tools as you see fit where there is an edit war. However, the preceeding edits might be seen be an attempt to cement your own partisan views . I think this should be left to adminstrator who can take an impartial view. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have protected the page regardless of what version it was; it is against policy and common sense to use admin tools to enforce one's position. Please understand that, although I did comment on the discussion and am, personally, against the inclusion of PLOT in WP:NOT, I will follow consensus and until a consensus is reached the edit warring needs to be stopped. For example, you'll also note this edit which is against my personal belief as to what the content of NOT should be, but which I made because there was no consensus at that time for the removal. The edit war was going on for two days; it can just be discussed on the talk page for a little while rather than wasting everyone's energy over fighting back and forth. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have a view, continue to express it on the talk page - don't hide behind the lack of consensus to justify your intervention. We both know you are one of the heaviest "investors" in plot only articles there are on Wikipedia. You edit many of the plot only articles in the Dungeons & Dragons, and so you know how bad the problem is better than anyone at WT:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I also intervened and re-added plot when it was removed without proper discussion, which is strongly against my personal opinion of what should be in NOT based upon my experience with D&D articles, but I re-added it anyway. I think that a better location for this discussion would be at WT:NOT, because otherwise we'll just keep going around in circles here. I can create a section, or you can; it doesn't really matter to me. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I just think you should step away from using admin tools on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when so many of the articles you edit fail them. To be frank, you are the administrative equivalent of a cat amoungst the pigeons.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll unprotect it and put in a request at WP:RPP, although I think I just protected the wrong version. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw this interaction because I have this talkpage on my watchlist. I believe Drilnoth is able to use his administrator abilities impartially, even when he had strong feelings about a topic, but at the same time I understand wanting to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Drilnoth unprotected the page, and I have now protected it. I am not involved in the dispute, and do not have strong feelings about PLOT. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 22:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And I'd just filed a request. :) Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

somethings wrong with my template. I just upload again VooDooChild.JPG and it doesn't show on the gallery. Also a new one LaughgingAtIris.JPG

Thank you, see you tomorrow. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

I added them to the category. To make them appear in the gallery, you need to add the following text (exactly is written here) to the image description page:

[[Category:Eric de Kolb]]

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note about a PUI you closed, Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_April_8#File:IMG_0339_Desktop.jpg. I know that keep seems like AGF, but it's actually the opposite. This user uploaded a picture that they took for Wikipedia to use. Another person came along and took away their copyrights. That is not the point of AGF. To post to Wikipedia you have to almost-completely give up your rights to an image, and many (maybe most) people wouldn't want to do that without a little bit of thought. This is the last "presumed-GFDL" image, and there were about 450 two months ago. I've personally sorted through about 400 of those, with most being deleted. It's not a huge deal, but to delete the tag and the category I need to delete that image or find it a valid tag, but I don't think there is one. In my opinion, when an uploader doesn't release an image under a free license, AGF should be in favor of protecting their copyrights; AGF = delete. JohnnyMrNinja 17:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I see your point. My apologies. The image could probably be tagged with {{di-no source}} and be deleted that way, which I had somehow overlooked earlier. Would that work? Drilnoth (T C L) 18:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagging won't work as its been through PUF. I think, as you closed it with only two votes, you can just close it the other way. If you aren't comfortable with that, we can send it to DRV. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I'll just re-close it as delete. My apologies; I'll keep this in mind in the future. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to apologize for, and hopefully the above didn't sound like a lecture. Your close was not improper and you merely repeated an argument made in the discussion. Closing a discussion with only two comments that has been open for a while should usually default to keep anyways. No worries, and thanks for your quick response. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay; thanks for letting me know. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this deletion, I think the image in question shows far more of the artistry than text ever could. That said, I also noted that a better image should supercede it. Would you be opposed to relisting this image for further discussion. Simply moving the image within the article to the lead image would solve some problems stated by the delete votes. I concur that this is a close one, but IMHO, I think we should have at least a temporary image for now rather than no image at all. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to leave this here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja
- I see... Well, have you tried looking for a better group image? If you try to find a good group image (I don't know enough about the topic, but JohnnyMrNinja seems to have found one), that could be uploaded and this one could be kept deleted. However, if you can't find a suitable image then I can undelete it for you, although it should probably have a stronger rationale (the one which it had had seemed pretty "generic" and not strong enough for its use). Does that seem fair? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  - I have no problem with this solution. Like I said, the only reason for keeping it was that it was the best display of the work in question we had. If something else can supercede it, I see no reason to keep the other. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    - Okay; let me know once you've finished looking around. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
      - Done. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
      - BTW, I am by no means some anime fan, but I think it doesn't help matters to delete an image for identification of the visual aspects of the work without replacing it with something else (not policy, just my own opinion). On a related topic, I'm thinking about applying for adminship. Any feedback you could give before I submit it would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
        Thanks! Anyway, based on my interactions with you I'd be initially inclined to support an RFA if I saw it; however, I'd need to more thoroughly read the answers to your questions and the previous RFAs, and take a scan through your contribs, to be sure. I'd say just go for it; you never know. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
        I have a draft already with answers to previous questions. I'm not so much interested in support as feedback in how my answers may/may not be perceived. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
        Okay then; I'll try to take a look tomorrow. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you see the other message that I sent before (see above) (Bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the info about getting my work on what to add on to get my picture to stick.

I also have a new problem.

It seems that Mrs. de Kolb is uneasy and this permissions letter. The license CC-by-3.0 copy left allows anyone to copy, distribute, share and transmit the work and to remix and adapt, and to use in commercially as long as they attribute her (whatever that means).

I am now writing to the commons and asking them if we could have a set up similiar to Salvador Dali Wikipedia, whose images aren't "free use" but "fair use"

"qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information."

And so, I have just emailed permissions-commons and asked if I can change license.

Also, I might add, I don't want to contact Wikipedia Copyright again. They put all my questions on the internet, so if someone decides to look up Eric de Kolb, they also see my questions on Wikipedia. How annoying!

Thanks, (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

Oh... well, in that case I'm afraid I have some bad news: The images will need to be deleted. Wikipedia has very, very, strict rules on when fair use content can be used... see the criteria. We may be able to keep one or two of the images for use specifically on the Eric de Kolb Wikipedia article, but the rest will need to be deleted. You see, one of Wikipedia's (and Commons') goals is to have free content... see the third of Wikipedia's core five "pillars". Commons doesn't allow any non-free (fair use) material on their site, and on Wikipedia every non-free image is required to meet the criteria that I mentioned above. Having a full collection of these images cannot meet those criteria, although a couple may be acceptable.

Please don't get me wrong... I don't want to see these images deleted or anything, but without solid permission of their release under CC-by copyleft licensing, they need to be removed for Wikipedia's and Commons' standards and policies to be followed.

I hope that this doesn't harm your perception of Wikipedia... as I said before, image copyright is probably one of the trickiest areas to deal with because it gets more into legal law than any other area of editing.

Please don't hesitate to ask me if you have any other questions; I'll do what I can to help. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Driloth,

Why then is Salvador Dali's images allowed, but not Eric de Kolb's/ The problem with the CC-by-3.0 license is that it say's "Commercial Use", and also, it say's "copyrighted is properly attributed". That doesn't mean "paid" it means "attributed". Anyway, I hope it get's straightened out.

(bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

The images in Salvador Dalí are almost all "free" images, which are perfectly allowed, and in the articles about his various paintings the pictures are fair-use. However, these fair-use images meet the criteria because, typically, there's only one or two in each article and they are very relevant to the article. It's confusing, I know.

Anyway, yes. All copyleft licenses that Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons accepts require that the image be allowed for commercial use in addition to noncommercial use, although some of them (like CC-by-3.0) require that the image's author/copyright holder be attributed (e.g. "This image released under copyleft license by [name]") I hope that all of this is figured out, but I'm afraid that it doesn't look good. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Driloth, explain to me what "copyleft" means again. I wrote the permissions about this "salvador dali" stuff. I guess they will delete me, but I hope they don't do it until I have totally straightened this out with Mrs. de Kolb. So where did you see "free" images, I just saw the "fair" ones. I will look again and I will tell Mrs. de Kolb this. Hopefully Wikimedia commons won't get too confused if one minute I tell them that's it's not ok, and the next minute I send them the permissions letter. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm sure they'll figure it out. :) Anyway copyleft (the Wikipedia article should have quite a bit of information, if you want more info than what I have here) is the opposite of copyright. A "copyleft" license essentially allows anyone to use the licensed text or images without paying royalties to its copyright holder. Every copyleft license is different... Wikipedia only allows the use of those which allow for both commercial and noncommercial use (so people could use the images to make money without paying anyone to do so). Another common feature of copyleft licenses is the requirement that the reuser of the image attribute the original creator (that is, mention who actually holds the copyright), which I think is required by the CC-by-SA-3.0 license.

For the Salvador Dalí article specifically, clicking on the image descriptions will reveal that most all of them are licensed under a copyleft license or released into the public domain; they aren't "fair use". –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at Salvador Dali. Here is what it say's typically on the images. This doesn's seem like copyleft to me.

""This image is of a drawing, painting, print, or other two-dimensional work of art, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the artist who produced the image, the person who commissioned the work, or the heirs thereof. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of works of art

   * for critical commentary on
         o the work in question,
         o the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
         o the school to which the artist belongs
   * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricdeKolb (talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being blind, but I just don't see that text on any of the image descriptions; could you tell me the names of the specific images? That is a fair-use rationale, not a copyleft license. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your tremendous work with the mop, especially on the WP:PUF and WP:FFD backlogs, I award you this virtual token of non-virtual appreciation. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's much appreciated. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cabaret Scene.jpg BasketofBread.jpg The_Ghost_of-Vermear.jpg Swans_Reflecting_Elephants.jpg DisintegrationofPersistence.jpg

(Bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Ah... you are referring to various Salador Dalí paintings, not just those used in the actual article about him. In that case I can explain: Basically, fair use images need to have a strong rationale for their inclusion in each individual article. These images could not be kept in the Salvador Dalí because having galleries of non-free images aren't allowed. However, they do meet the criteria because there are individual articles about each painting, so File:BasketofBread.jpg can be used in Basket of Bread, which is about the painting, but not in Salvador Dalí, which is about the artist. It's confusing, I know. Anyway, if there were articles about each of Eric de Kolb's paintings they could probably be fair use and used in the articles, but that won't be possible without sources to establish the notability of each painting which has its own article. Does that clarify things for you? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not so much me I am worried about, it's Mrs. de Kolb. I don't want Wikipedia to delete my images and I need her approval. Anyway,now I am going to go through the Salvador Dali article and look at the images.

I am back again. Seems there are only 3 pictures of sculptures that are classified as free use, the rest of them are all restricted.

(bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

I just looked at each image in that article, and they are all free images (none are fair use), although one of them has a pseudo-copyright tag because of freedom of panorama. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where in the article you are looking, I just went through 3 paintings in the article and they were all fair use.

File:Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bumblebee around a Pomegranate a Second Before Awakening.jpg

The Persistence of Memory.jpg

Crucifixion (Corpus Hyber Orbus???) Bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those are in the Salvador Dalí Wikipedia article... are you looking at Category:Salvador Dalí? There's a big difference between the category and the article; the category contains a lot of fair-use images because they meet the criteria for use in certain articles, but they aren't in the article about the artist because they don't meet the criteria for that. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Driloth, I don't really understand what I am doing wrong. I go into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Dal%C3%AD and there is the article. It just has the fair-use images and no free use. I'll keep looking, but if you could correct me further, great. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Hmm... I don't see any fair-use images there. They are all copyleft under the GFDL copyleft license, a CC-by copyleft license, or are public domain. That article doesn't actually contain any images of his paintings like those that you mentioned above. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The persistence of memory is there. Why don't you do this: Cut and paste one line from the article with the image into your User talk page, then I will do a search for it. Maybe I will end up in the same place as you. (Bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

"tensive symbolism in his work. For instance, the hallmark "soft watches" that first appear" is one. Once you're at the article with that, don't click any links except to view full image descriptions, because that would make you go to another article. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am in the article. How can I not click on any links to view the full image description (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Sorry if I was unclear: You should click on the images actually shown on that page. Don't use a link which coges to another page like freedom of panorama does. (in other words, click the images, not the blue links). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Driloth, but this is not the same thing. These are photos of Salvador Dali, or a museum, or his crypt. they are not pictures of his artwork. I would like to see one of his paintings with the "free public domain"label. All of the other images are "copyright infringement" (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Okay; I thought that that might have been the confusion. You see, none of his paintings are copyleft or public domain, and therefore must qualify under fair use to be used... see the non-free content criteria for details. Each of his paintings is fair-use in the article about the painting, but almost nowhere else because that the only place that it would meet the criteria. Eric de Kolb's paintings can't be fair use for Wikipedia because they won't meet those criteria... it would be OK if there were articles about the individual paintings, but each individual one probably isn't notable enough to have its own article. The images can't be used in the article about Eric de Kolb himself, because that would fail the "significance" and "minimum use" criteria. I'm sorry, but I just can't see any way that the images could be kept on Wikipedia or the Commons as fair use images... they'd need to be copyleft or public domain, and without their specific release as such by Mrs. de Kolb, they can't be free either. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Driloth, Got It!! Let's hope that Mrs. de Kolb will agree to release all the images under copyleft. I think some of them should be no problem. Thanks for your help. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

You're welcome; I'm sorry if I had been unclear. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I'm noticing that if you access an article's talk page via a red link (such as you go to an article, click on the talk page tab), the wikiprojects tab isn't available. It's only available on already created article talk pages. Also the "Group into wikiprojectbannershell" option doesn't work for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstarecho (talk • contribs)

The wikiprojects tab shows up for me when clicking to a red linked talk page. The grouping box is checked by default; is it still not grouping them when you press submit? Or are you unable to uncheck it? (also, what browser do you use? That can make a difference). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I get no wikiprojects tab when on a red lined article talk page. :[ As for the grouping.. the box is checked and when I press submit, it'll add the project tag I chose, it just doesn't group it or it with any others already present. I'm using FireFox 3.something (the latest). - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... anyway, the script doesn't currently group new banners with existing banners; it just groups new banners together if you're adding more than one at a time (it's on my to-do list, but right now I'm working more with CodeFixer than AssessorTags; I hope to get to it at some point). Interesting with the redlinks... I also use FF3, but it shows up fine. :/ I don't really know what I can do about it then, but I'll keep it in mind when I get to put some more work into that script. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:FORMATTER and WP:ADVISOR could also just be merged in over time if we did this; I can edit the protected pages to make it work. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Advisor would take some work but we can probably "steal" a lot of its functions. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so. I'm dumb on this front, but from what I can tell, I don't see why not. If it didn't become bloated and slow down the functions. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops; posted in the wrong section. Sorry about the confusion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And how do you get User talk:Drilnoth/Editnotice to show up on your user talk page when it's in the edit state?? Very cool! - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's WikiMagic. :) Take a look at WP:EDITNOTICE; if you create User talk:Allstarecho/Editnotice, that should show up for your talk page. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, very good stuff! Thanks! - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so here's a good example. I go to Glover Quin. The talk page tab is red, which of course means there's nothing there. So I clic on the red talk page tab. It brings me to the talk page in editable form. No wikiprojects tab is present. So to get the wikiprojects tab, I have to manually remove &action=edit&redlink=1 from the URL in the address bar and then hit go. Then I get the page NOT in editable form, and I get the wikiprojects tab. I'm going to leave this article along so you can maybe see what I'm talking about. I'll tag it later. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I went to the page and the tab was there even with the "&action=edit&redlink=1" text in the URL. I guess that it must just be a browser or computer difference; I'm afraid there isn't much that I can do about that. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Odd indeed. And thanks for the spell check on my Editnotice. And I've got your page watched so death to {{Talkback}}! lol :] - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh... the only reason that I use talkback is because I don't want people to miss my response. I'm not a big fan of it either, but the way I see it using it is beneficial overall. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I thought you were watching this page. ;) Something very wrong seems to be happening here! BOZ (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad news, everyone! The template used to generate that section can't handle non-mainspaces for talk pages! :) (good movie isn't it? The whole series, really). Seriously though, it's just a template problem which I haven't gotten around to trying to fix. The images themselves are still linked, but just not the talk pages. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, don't need the talkback, I'll check your page for responses sooner or later. ;) OK, I figured it was a template problem. As long as the images are linked, the talk pages are basically irrelevant. Saw Bender's Big Score (have a copy!) but need to see Beast with a Billion Backs (recorded it last night though!) BOZ (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay; just wanted to make sure about the talkback thing. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you note the results of this? :) BOZ (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. :) It's quite a selfref, but it could work. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I was impressed - I don't think it will be deleted though, as I haven't seen anything other than what looks to me like people being embarrassed by the attention given to the notability issue. BOZ (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's me again. Just spoke to Mrs. de Kolb. We decided to take many of the images off the Commons. There are those though we are going to leave on. I will have the signed letter to permissions by Wed. night, Thursday morn.

Here is something else. While browsing through Wikipedia, I pressed on someones "external links" and there was their website.

I have a website in progress. Can I link the de Kolb website to Wikipedia. I will have the images on that website. Do those images have to be copyleft free also, or just leave them because they are already copyrighted since Mrs. de Kolb is the heir.

(Bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Sure, you can add a link to the website to the Eric de Kolb Wikipedia article (as long as it meets the external links guideline, but that probably won't be an issue). Images there won't have to be copyleft or anything, because they'd be on a separate website.

That makes sense, to release some of them under the copyleft license and keep others copyrighted (and removed from Wikimedia Commons). If you already know what ones won't be licensed under a copyleft license, you can go to each of their pages on Wikimedia Commons (not the page for the file on Wikipedia!) and adding the following text. This should notify an administrator of the situation so that they are deleted appropriately. I'd just wait on doing anything with the ones which you plan to have under a copyleft license until their permission is verified, at which point you can include that proof.

The text is:

{{speedydelete|The original uploader of this image ([[User:EricdeKolb]]) requests that this  file be deleted per the discussion at [[w:User talk:Drilnoth#New Question from Eric de Kolb]]. In short, this image does not have the copyright holder's permission to have a copyleft license.}}

Does that sound good to you? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I will start doing that, but not tonight. Probably Thursday. Have a great evening. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Hi, since we seem to be collaborating quite a bit on script writing, I was wondering if you might want to try to come up with a more systematic way for collaboration. For example, I noticed that you copied some stuff from my script, which is absolutely fine as I am very happy to see people reusing what I have written. However, when I find bugs in this code, I am not able to fix them in your version and I may not be aware of every place where this bug has propagated if other people are using it. One possible option would be to continue as we have been working, but split off some of our tools into a (or a few) separate file(s). For example, see User:Plastikspork/tools.js. This would allow us to include one another's tools, using an 'includescript' statement. The function names would be prefixed with either Drilnoth or Spork or Plastikspork or whatever to make it clear where the function lives. The names of the functions may be long, but descriptive. The other option would be to create a separate project space where we could both contribute these short common helper functions, but that might be more complicated. Of course, both options require a bit of trust, but so does copying and pasting one another's code. But this is why I put every script that I include on my watchlist. In either case, I feel small helper functions and short scripts with collections of related helper functions are extremely useful. The problem with codes like 'Formatter' is that primarily that I cannot include it without everything. Let me know what you think or if you have any better ideas. I plan to continue to split my script into these smaller subscripts since there are several users of my scripts who have expressed an interest in using on part of its functionality. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Another reason why this is a good idea. If you check no:Bruker:Helt/codefixer.js, you will see it has some of the bugs which you fixed in your version. This collaboration would allow Helt to use parts of your script and regionalize it for his/her own purposes. Plastikspork (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ideas... so basically, you're suggesting that a single "main script" page contain the basic code needed to initiate the other scripts, and then the others can be imported separately onto that page, because then someone who wants to reuse the code with modifications could just copy the main script page and add/remove what they didn't want? And then some of the functions would be in my userspace, and some in yours? That would make sense to me. We'd need to work out some of the details (e.g., should it all be semi-automated? Use in-edit mode sidebar buttons for some things like your script does now [like the stuff like date reformatting and table conversion], and have things that don't need much human intervention work using a single button? I'd personally prefer the latter), but the overall concept could work pretty well. If you'd like, I can mock up a "main script" page at User:Drilnoth/codefixerworking.js and we can see how it goes... both scripts would need some reworking/reformatting to make this kind of a thing work, although if you didn't mind I could do most of that (for example, we'd want to unify whether we use "str" or "txt.value", and I could update pages in both userspaces so that we don't cross paths or anything). How does that all sound? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(copied from the section below where it was posted by accident) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:FORMATTER and WP:ADVISOR could also just be merged in over time if we did this; I can edit the protected pages to make it work. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Advisor would take some work but we can probably "steal" a lot of its functions. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you have the basic idea. In the first iteration you could start by doing the following:

codefixer.js would include (1) the codeFixerMinor variable initialization, (2) one or more scriptinclude functions, (3) the codefixerstartinedit and codefixerplusstartinedit functions and everything below that point.
tools.js or codefixertools.js or whatever you want to call it would include the codefixer, codefixerlplus, and FirstToLower functions

As a second step, it would be great to see the large codefixer function broken down into subfunctions which do only a specific task

codefixer_htmlchar2wiki could convert html characters to ascii
codefixer_htmltable2wiki could convert html tables to wikitables
codefixer_sectioncaps could convert capitalization of common section headings
... and so on ...

Of course, we will probably find that once this is performed that there are repeated subfunctions which can start to share. We might want to put these shared functions (once they have been reasonably debugged) in a common place outside of the user namespace which is then edit protected? Much in the same way that Formatter isn't in the user namespace and many people can reuse these functions by simply including them in their scripts.

As a programming note, it would be great if these smaller subfunctions could take strings as input and return strings as output, that way they can be used in a more general context. This is why I have been using str for subfunctions which do not load the editform and txt.value for the parent functions which does load the editform. I actually like the way that WP:FORMATTER is structured, if only it were (a) split into two parts so the subfunctions could be reused and (b) used prefixed function names to prevent name collision. Today, I have been splitting my code into smaller chunks with reusable subfunctions. I currently have User:Plastikspork/tools.js and User:Plastikspork/datetools.js. My plan is to split tools into linktools and perhaps html2wikitools. I believe we will find quite a bit of overlap at that point and we can look into merging my html2wikitools. Or if we can come up with a plan sooner, I can just remove the html2wikitools part of my code and merge it into a shared tool space. Plastikspork (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(not indented due to # of paragraphs) Great! I've been working today on creating a "core" framework at User:Drilnoth/EasyEd/core.js, although moving that into Wikipedia-space and protecting it would probably make more sense. My idea was that it could be structured as follows:

EasyEd/core.js contains the "main" functions needed to make the scripts function, looking pretty much like what it is now.
Each different type of fixer function would be on its own page, so that each one can be imported separately. E.g., Unicodifying would be in one, link simplification in another, HTML to wikitext in another, etc.
EasyEd/main.js would import core.js and the "basic" selection of helper functions, customized appropriately, so that that page could be imported without further configuration.
Because of how it is set up, users could create their own functions and import them into the script for use. For example Dinoguy's fullwidth replacer could be an additional helper script which could be added using a basic customization system.

The setup which I have in mind would allow for every function to be set as either automatic (done simultaneously with other edits by clicking a tab) or selectively activated (like how the various Sprk functions are now). It would be easy to maintain and customize, and we'd both be able to contribute "modules" from our own userspaces, as could others, to the "main" selection. Users who want to customize what their script replaces could configure it to do so, using a basic help guide that describes the script's layout and how it can be altered (maybe including a basic RegExp introduction for new scripters?).

I was trying to come up with a better name for it than "CodeFixer", since that's already kind of inaccurate and with this level of customizability it most certainly would be wrong, and "EasyEd" was the best that I could come up with... it's an editing tool that makes simple or common fixes easy to do. If you have a better idea for a name, I'd be happy to hear it.

I don't quite understand why "str" or something similar would make more sense than just using txt.value... what difference does it really make? I'm open to having it either way, I'm just curious.

I'm thinking that this could then by a real "community" script... the two of us might be the primary "maintainers", but everyone will be able to create new modules for it.

Does that make sense? Or am I going in completely the wrong direction? I can keep working on this... I think that working on the "core" or "main" functions at the same time could get confusing, so if it makes sense to you I could get those basic two set up and then we can work on converting our scripts to use the proper format/design. I'd just need to know whether str or txt.value should be used and I'd be ready to really start, if you think that this is a good idea. I think that its pretty close to yours, except that everything would be set up in one step. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

All this sounds very good and I think we are converging on a plan. The reason why there are so many 'Spork buttons' is actually due to requests. My script originally only had one button, but then someone said "Hey, could you split your one button into two because I don't want to remove whitespace, just fix links", then someone else said, "Hey, could you split ..." and the next thing you know, I have way too many buttons. This is one of the things that got me thinking about this idea of making smaller modules and allowing people to pick and choose. I think that having a community script and a community set of "smaller tools" is a great idea as soon as we have things reasonably debugged. Having the stable core set of tools admin protected would also be for the best for security.

The txt.value vs. str is not so much a debate about the name, but a question about how to pass the string to a function and how to best repeatedly access it. There is a fairly informative article about forms here. When we write txt = document.editform.wpTextbox1;, the txt variable holds a reference to the textbox object from the first textbox on the page. When we write str = txt.value we now copy the contents of the textbox into a string. Now, the question is do we want these subfunctions to act on strings or act on textboxes? Certainly repeated writing 'str = str.replace(...)' is shorter than 'txt.value = txt.value.replace(...)'. The question is what does javascript do when you execute 'txt.value = txt.value.replace' vs 'str = str.replace' and is one faster than the other? I actually don't know and it probably doesn't make much of that difference. Note that 'str' and 'txt' are just a names and I just as easily could have said 'monkey = document.editform.wpTextbox1', but the convention in most of these scripts seems to be use the name 'str' for strings and 'txt' for textboxes.

My only request would be that when we call these string processing functions we actually pass them an argument rather than having every single one load the contents of the textbox. One reasoning for this is to try to keep the specific name for the textbox we are operating on (i.e., wpTextbox1) isolated to the same location as all the other wikipedia specific functions (e.g., onLoadaddHook, ...).

So we can either call these functions like txt.value = sample_function(txt.value), which is how Formatter does it, or like sample_function(txt), which should work and wouldn't require a return statement at the end of sample_function. The only unmentioned advantage of using txt.value = sample_function(txt.value) would be that these could be thought of as string processing functions which could be used on subsections of a textbox form, making them more general since they don't need to know about the fact that this string came from a textbox. Computer Scientists usually try to have functions operate on a 'need to know basis' for security reasons, although that's probably not an issue here, but just a general programming style. Plastikspork (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As for "Dinoguy's fullwidth replacer", yes that would be another script which could be split into a core plus a main script and could be added to the toolset if he/she is interested. Plastikspork (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And, as for a name for the set of tools, I don't have a strong preference, but I agree that CodeFixer is probably not the best match. I was thinking that since it does automate things, it might be useful to put the word 'Auto' in the title. Something like 'AutoWikify' or 'AutoEdit' or 'AutoWikiClean' or 'AutoClean' or whatever. Just a thought. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I'll just trust you on that whole thing (I'm a bit too tired right now to really be able to process all of the JavaScript stuff) and start working on the script tomorrow (I'll also move the script to project space so that you can work on it for now, too, although I'll need to protect it once it's ready to "go live" for security reasons). For the name, "WikiCleaner" was my first thought, but that's already taken. :( "AutoWikify" would work with the current selection of fixes, but modules could also be made to fix things like typos (as configuration, of course, not core) and then that wouldn't make sense. "AutoEdit" sounds good to me (probably shortened to "auto ed" for the tab and sidebar names).

I see your point about the buttons and all; that's why I think that this could be a really nice script because of customizability. Theoretically, any module could be used as either a sidebar button or a simultaneous fix with other modules, so that each user can tweak it to suit their personal preferences. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have created WP:AutoEd and its talk page to continue this conversation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was the uploader of the this image which was recently deleted from this discussion. I'm not really sure how to go about this, but I believe the image was deleted in error. The two reasons cited for deletion were NFCC#1 and 3.

Because the image has copyrighted content, no free image can exist. Even if the photographer waives their copyright, the content is still a derivative piece and illegible for a free license. I base this assumption on my interpretations on Commons:Commons:Derivative works Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches. As such, NFCC#1 does not apply because a free equivalent is not available.

NFCC#3 states "Minimal usage" and "Minimal extent of use". Yes, there are other non-free images used in the Marble Madness article, but each one adds something to the article. This not only showed the physical object, but marketing images used to attract customers and the trackball control system. Based on what I've read in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches, I believed minimal usage to meant to avoid redundancy and maximize significance, not simply keep the number as low as possible. In regard to the NFCC#3b, the image was a minimal extent of use; it was less than 1/3 of the original flyer and low resolution. Also, I have never heard of NFCC#3 applying to the number of copyrights involved in image placement on Wikipedia.

I would really like to discuss this issue, and hope we can come to an amicable resolution. I've watchlisted this page and will check back. Thank you for your time. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

I see your point; however, in this instance consensus was clearly for deletion in my mind because everyone's arguements (including yours) seemed equally well-grounded in policy. You could open deletion review; I don't feel that I should undelete it because there was apparent consensus at the FFD discussion, so I'd rather have some more eyes look at it before I undelete against that consensus. I must admit that it was a difficult close; my personal feeling is that the NFCC are too strict, but they were created by consensus and were used well in the discussion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your openess. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 28. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Thank you for your email.

I think that the confusion here stems from the different standards for images and media files used on English Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Commons. English Wikipedia, in certain cases, permits files to be used under "fair use" which is a feature of copyright law in the United States, where the servers for English Wikipedia are located. Wikimedia Commons is an international project, and files uploaded to it must be fully "copyleft", with a free license such as the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-all. Fair use is not acceptable at Wikimedia Commons.

Unfortunately, all Wikimedia projects, including English Wikipedia, can only accept permission to use images and media that have been freely licensed. "Fair use" is actually using the image or media file without the permission of the owner, and is strictly construed. If you think that the use of the images on Wikipedia constitutes fair use, you may upload the images to English Wikipedia directly. They will not be able to be used on other projects, or Wikipedias based in countries that do not recognize fair use. If you have any questions concerning this, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you for the time you have spent in this endeavor, it is appreciated.

(bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Does that help clarify things for you, then? If you're still confused about this, please feel free to ask me. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Judging from what it said in the "fair use" images, I don't think I qualify. I mean they aren't showing students brushstrokes, etc. So I guess I am going to delete all or some of the images and then in external links but the links with the artwork in there. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like what you need to do, unless Mrs. de Kolb does give permission for some of them to be released under a copyleft license as you had mentioned a few days ago. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks. have a good eve. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Oh, one more thing Driloth! Does my article get translated into different languages? (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

No; each language of Wikipedia is set up and edited separately, so somebody could translate the article into other languages, but it isn't automatic or anything. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should let someone do that for me. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
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 II (talk) at 04:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

driloth, I just did a {{speedydelete|The original uploader of this image (User:EricdeKolb) requests that this file be deleted per the discussion at w:User talk:Drilnoth#New Question from Eric de Kolb.

I speedy deleted many images, I hope I did it right. You know, I tried to ad dekolbart link to external links, but I was unsuccessful. Could you ad it for me: http://dekolbart.com/ (I am still working on this site. All the pictures aren't on it yet, but it's a start)

Also, I noticed many images had a CC-by-SA-3.0. I didn't use that license, I always used the CC-by-3.0. Why are some of them wrong.

(bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Okay; I added the external link to the Eric de Kolb article.

It seems that there was a slight problem in the deletion requests which needs to be fixed. commons:Template:Speedydelete is a template, so to add it to a page you need to start it with two curly brackets {{ followed by the template name, a pipe symbol | and the reason for deletion, finally closing the template with another two curly brackets }} It looks like the closing brackets weren't added on at least some of the pages, so the template didn't work. You can just add them }} right after the signature which is already on each of those pages. If it works, the page should show a large red box rather than just the text.

For the license, that's probably my fault. When I had copied the images to Wikimedia Commons I didn't know quite which license you were using, because I saw that you were uploading some using CC-by-SA-3.0 and some just CC-by-SA, and some of the descriptions mentioned both. Since you had more recently been uploading with CC-by-SA-3.0, I assumed that that was the one which you meant to use. I guess that that was probably a stupid thing to do; my apologies. Anyway, it shouldn't really matter at this point. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try again. I just sent the permissions letter in. Somehow or other the photo place got confused and put my entire file in pdf format. I discussed with him for a sec. about pdf, but also told him not to pdf it, just scan. It caused all sorts of problems in the email and I ended up sending 4 emails to cover one permissions pdf letter and 2 photos. Also, I will be away for a few days so I don't know when I will be going back to the store that screwed me up. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Hi, it's me again. Well, I speedy deleted everything except for EricdeKolbinCapri.jpg. I have another photo of Eric, but they put it in pdf format so I have to wait to upload it. Hopefully, I got all the speedy delete images. If I missed anything, I guess I will find it when I come back home in a few days.

By the way, the weblink is dekolbart.com You wrote it De Kolb Art. Com. It works though, so I guess it's ok. See you most likely on Sunday. Thanks a million.

(bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Thanks; the templates seem to be fixed. The external link is linked to the website, but I've set it to display the name with spacing and capitalization for ease of reading. Talk to you in a few days then! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, at my friends on their computer. the de kolb art is more readable. thanks. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Not to brag or anything, but... check out the new and improved {{swl}}.

(That's right, I'm using the extra cool icon for this one.) – Quadell ^(talk) 02:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded to at your talk page. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you requested a copyedit for Ravenloft (module). I've played lots of D&D in my time, and I'd love to see this article get promoted to FA, especially if prose is the only thing standing in the way. Do you still want me to have a look? If so, I'll get started with my trusty red pen. Scartol • Tok 15:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please! It sounds like that was the only thing standing between a successful and an unsuccessful FAC, so if gets a good copyedit we can probably renominate it. The second FAC might have a few suggestions; feel free to ask me if you have any questions about what something is supposed to mean. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm on my way. I'll do some copyediting this weekend, and compile a list of questions as I go. (I'll post these to the article talk page when I've finished my copyedit.) Cheers! Scartol • Tok 15:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm watching the page so I'll see the questions. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Great! We've gotten quite a few articles promoted to GA since the Ravenloft module, so we should probably reassess the potential on some of them. 16:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs)

All done. Good luck! Scartol • Tok 18:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll put some more touches onto it and I'll let you know when it's at FAC. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's probably okay to remove that request at the GoCE website now, yeah? (I didn't want to do it myself in case you disagree.) Scartol • Tok 18:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead; if there are still issues that need to be fixed I can just make a new request. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already included the best content from the two PC Gamer articles. If you want to have a second look, the scans are linked from my talk page: User talk:Twas Now#Planescape: Torment magazine request. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah... seems I missed that. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Concerning this, is moving "'s" inside links a good rule for an automatic edit? Both ways are acceptable for the posessive form per MOS, so I'm not sure if you want to enforce one form over the other per automated edits.
Cheers, Amalthea 00:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the logic is not so much about the apostrophe s, but instead about moving all the linked text inside of the wikilink to make it more clear what is being highlighted. In the case of an unpiped wikilink, then clearly this would not be acceptable, since it would change the link target. As you said, both are functionally equivalent, and there is nothing about this in the MOS. I personally find it easier to read if the highlighted text is inside the link. You will actually find this feature in several different wiki-cleanup scripts. Not answering for Drilnoth, but my 2 cents (as a talk page stalker). Plastikspork (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I certainly agree with changing [[Foo|Ba]]r, but there's a visual difference between [[Brandy (singer)|Brandy]]'s and [[Brandy (singer)|Brandy's]]: Brandy's vs. Brandy's.
WP:MOSLINK#Piped links mentions both variants, but doesn't state a preference. I believe I've read once that it should depend on the case, e.g. write Wendy's when the posessive form is part of the name, and leave the 's outside the link when it isn't.
This just doesn't strike me as a change that should be enforced by an automated process, so I think it should stick to pulling (\w*) only into such piped links, not ('?\w*) as you're currently doing.
Amalthea 00:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I see your point now and I agree. I forgot about the fact that the apostrophe breaks the highlighting. It appears this rule was copied from Wikipedia:FORMATTER. In particular, this line

str = str.replace(/\[\[([^\]\|]+)\|([^\]\|]+)\]\]([A-Za-z\'][A-Za-z]*)([\.\,\;\:\"\!\?\s\n])/g, "[[$1|$2$3]]$4");

was copied verbatim into Wikipedia:AutoEd/wikilinks.js. Changing this line to

str = str.replace(/\[\[([^\]\|]+)\|([^\]\|]+)\]\]([\w]+)([\.\,\;\:\"\!\?\s\n])/g, "[[$1|$2$3]]$4");

as you suggested, should fix the problem. Thanks for the bug report! Plastikspork (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; thank you. I will use Plastikspork's new code to avoid this in the future; thanks for letting us know. (and thanks for the advice Plastikspork!) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it appears [\w] is to aggressive as it matches numbers as well, and will change €11,300 to €11,300. I would now suggest the following instead

str = str.replace(/\[\[([^\]\[\|]+)\|([^\]\[\|]+)\]\]([a-z]+)/gi, "[[$1|$2$3]]");

note that I removed the fourth parenthetical part as the third is a greedy match which makes the fourth not necessary as far as I can tell. Shorter is better if it does the same thing. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Done; thanks for noticing that. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoopsie, my bad. I've just looked it up, for en-wiki ([a-z]+) is correct, but it varies per language. Hmm, that means I have to fix NAVPOP then, too. :) Amalthea 15:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So... should I make a change, or is it okay as-is? Sorry; I still haven't quite gotten more complicated RegExp figured out. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The change is perfectly fine in that it's now much safer, but the question is if it's now unnecessarily restrictive. When one writes [\w], this is shorthand for [A-Za-z0-9_], which is any uppercase letter in the range A-Z or any lowercase letter in the range a-z or any digit or an underscore character. The question is does this range cover everything that would be highlighted by WP if it were appended to the end of a wikilink? We have determined that 0-9 would not be and A-Za-z would be, but is there something we are leaving out. I just found MediaWiki:Gadget-popups.js after checking Amalthea's edit history. Cool stuff. I will have to put this on my reading list as there are lots of great ideas in there. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

← That's what I meant with "I've looked it up": For english content, it's defined at MessagesEn.php, which reads:

/**
 * Regular expression matching the "link trail", e.g. "ed" in [[Toast]]ed, as
 * the first group, and the remainder of the string as the second group.
 */
$linkTrail = '/^([a-z]+)(.*)$/sD'

(it's supposed to be pulled from MediaWiki:Linktrail, but that message is ignored for performance reasons). So if you don't want to port AutoEd to other language Wikis it's fine. See also bugzilla:15035, where it was last discussed after it was briefly changed to a more generic expression.
Oh, and I didn't write popups, I just help maintaining it these days. Cheers, Amalthea 15:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Very useful. Thanks for the clarification. We are interested in making it easy to port AutoEd to other languages, and a portion of the current development was started in response to User:Drilnoth/codefixer.js/doc#Linkfixes after realizing that User:Drilnoth/codefixer.js had been regionalized to create no:Bruker:Helt/codefixer.js. It would be great if this sort of regionalization could be performed by setting some variables, rather than copy/paste and edit as this fork must be maintained and bug-fixes must be synced. Plastikspork (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with what Plastikspork said (is it even possible to import across languages, though?). So should I change something with the script? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears it's possible to import from an arbitrary URL, see for example this search. We should get an example of what sort of character ranges are highlighted in other languages and perhaps make this an option. As far as I can tell, most of the script modules are multi-lingual friendly. The only currently identified exceptions being this one, names of standard section headings ('External links') and names of file/image links ('Image:', 'File:'). The plan should be either to (a) isolate these exceptions to a small module, or (b) allow these exceptions to be customized, depending on the context. However, so far I haven't identified any places where the script would be harmful in another WP, just less aggressive than it could be. Plastikspork (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, I need to log off for awhile but I'll keep looking at this later. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, alright, neat. As you say, there are typically two ways to maintain localized scripts. You can either keep a localization for each wiki that wants it here, either in one big multilanguage page or a language-specific page which you select based on wgContentLanguage, or you make the script pull a localized configuration from a wiki-relative location. If you don't want to define the name in the script and thereby force all projects to use the same one (using a canonical namespace, like "Project:AutoEd/configuration.js"; not every project calls their Project namespace "Wikipedia"), you can either allow them to provide it in a URL parameter AutoEd takes and imports, or you can make the remote projects take care of it themselves, something like fr:MediaWiki:Gadget-Popups.js (only using importScriptURI, if possible).
The former is more organized since you keep control, and can more easily deal with backwards-compatibility breaking changes that require modifications to the configurations. The flipside is that it's more work for you, since you have to maintain it for all wikis that use it. Popups is doing a bit of both, it has localization info (like namespaces) in the script, but text can be localized at the projects, e.g. at fr:User:Leag/popups-strings-fr.js.
importScriptURI is defined in wikibits.js, and there's nothing to it, really: It just creates a script node with the given URL. Amalthea 21:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The first of those would probably make more sense, but let's get the English version fully stable and documented before moving on to that (hopefully this will still happen in the near future, however). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Driloth, I am back. I see I missed some speedy deletes. Well, I just fixed that. Also, my signature is off: When I try to sign my signiture, and I press the button, it doesn't work. is there any reason why??? EricdeKolb —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricdeKolb (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

So you pressed the little signature button and it didn't add the four tildes to the edit box? That's weird. On Wikipedia there is a button to add the tildes in the toolbar above the edit box and in the "insert" bar below the "save page" button (Commons only has the former). Did you try both of them? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I only tried the signiture. Wait, I'll try it the other way: (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)) Well, this wasn't the other way, it was with the signature icon. Maybe the difference is now I am on Firefox, before I was on Safari. Now I have to go back to my speedy deletes and try to sign them (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

I was just at my commons site and added my signature to the speedy deletes. I see you fixed the commons site up. Thanks, it had a lot of blank picture boxes and now they are gone. I have someone working on by dekolbart.com web page. Soon I will have more of de kolb's paintings on this website. I think it looks better with the pictures all on Wikipedia and the Commons, oh well, can't have everything I guess. Thanks again (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

The browser could have been making the difference. Anyway, you don't need to add your signature to speedy deletion nominations, just on comments at talk pages. Anyway, what do you mean by "fix the commons site up"? I haven't done anything; was there maybe a Safari bug? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that where the pictures were, there were empty picture boxes, now the empty picture boxes are gone. It looks neater, but of course it looked better with the images. I guess someone else worked on the commons page. Have a nice eve (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

Odd. Well, if it's fixed now I wouldn't worry about it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just logged in for a moment and check my messages. Have a good night Drilnoth! (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

I had to undo your edit at Geber due to an intervening test edit please try your edit now. Thank you. J8079s (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I'll add it back into my AWB list. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(In reference to your comment on user Billy Hathorn's page.) In the 1970's and earlier in the United States, copyright was not automatic, unlike the way it is now. Publication without following the proper formalities constituted dedicating the item to the public domain. That's why many published images from that era are in the public domain today even though 70 years has not passed since the life of the creator. And most yearbooks from that era were never protected by copyright. It would help if Mr. Hathorn would include more complete information on the images he's been uploading, however. Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops! My bad... I'm still learning a lot of the copyright-related stuff, so thanks for letting me know. I'll keep that in mind. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad to help. The effect of the changes in the copyright law over time aren't well-understood by many. Here's the tag for these kind of images, by the way: {{PD-US-no notice}}. Crypticfirefly (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll keep that in mind when I come across that kind of image. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with a previous effort in WikiProject assessments, since deleted by the creator? Outriggr ultimately dumped a centralized list of the endless varieties of WikiProject banners, and had individual users list the ones that they happened to use. A bit of a pain to set up, perhaps, but less maintenance hassle for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that script, and will probably do a similar thing when I come back to actively working on AssessorTags. Right now I'm focusing on some other script work, but when I work on AssessorTags again in earnest I hope to add a few features and will probably remove the centralization at the same time... I'm just a little hesitant to force each user to define their own banners because I'm not sure how to make the subgroups/task forces work, but we'll see. Thanks for the note! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Source? Umm... I gave the show number, show title, air date. If you would GOOGLE you would find that the bloody thing is as I said. So, I'm putting the edit back. Now, if you would CARE TO LOOK AT the show number, air date, etc etc etc as stated in plain Anglish in the edit, hmm? Do you want the exact minute in the show where the bloody D20 roll is?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastfashn (talk • contribs) 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down; the wiki isn't going to come crashing down around us either way. :) I just ran the suggested Google search and saw that this appears to be accurate. If you'd just added a reliable source in the first edit, there wouldn't have been any problem. As it is, the burden of evidence is generally upon the person adding material, and I (and others) reverted your edit because there wasn't a source. Now that you have a reference, it should be OK. Thanks, and my apologies for the trouble.

Also, as a side note, you usually shouldn't use capital letters as emphasis... it sounds like shouting. We're all trying to work together here; there's no need to get angry. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(P.S., you want to be careful about reverting edits like that. You almost, but not quite, violated the three revert rule. Just something to remember in the future). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked on WP:VG I took a look. The most notable thing to me was that for asking on the VG Projects page, there is nothing in the portal to indicate its video/computer game influences and games.じんない 06:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I was primarily referring to D&D's overall influence on video games, not nesseccarily what is currently in the portal. Popular games like Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate are based directly on D&D and most every RPG video game has its roots in D&D. Right only one D&D-related VG article is of high enough quality to be featured on the portal, but more should be on the way soon. I primarily mentioned it there because of D&D's overall influence on video games... after all, things like World of Warcraft probably wouldn't exist (or would by in a drastically altered form) without D&D's influences on both games and the fantasy genre. The portal itself doesn't really talk about the relation because there's only so much room, but the relation is clear if you look at List of Dungeons & Dragons video games. Does that make sense? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it probably shouldn't go at length to discuss it, but it should be noted that the development of VRPGs and action-adventure games have many of there roots in the series. You don't need to talk at length about it. 1-2 sentences is plenty for a portal, but a portal is suppose to be a general overview of important fundamentals of whatever it is a portal to and given the impact D&D has on those, I'd say it's important enough to at least note in the summary.じんない 03:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay; that seems fair. I'll add something later today when I have some more time. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That citation style you're using on Planescape: Torment... do you think is something we should adpot for all plot summaries, when applicable? That is to say, quoting from a module or something? BOZ (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's used in most video game articles for plot summary, but having quotes from modules seems appropriate for covering things like plot summary. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool, we'll have to work on that later, then. :) I want to work on all of our modules articles as much as I can. BOZ (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely; most of them are prime candidates to work towards GA status. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The review has begun! There is some work to do, but overall it looks like we're in good shape. BOZ (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Could I get you to protect a template for me, namely {{search link}}? I asked the templates co-creator (David Gothberg) about five days ago but think he is on vacation. I can also take it to RPP if that's the standard protocol. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see any reason why that template needs protection at this point... it only has a handful of transclusions. If it becomes more widely used, it should certainly be protected, but I don't really see the need at this point. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just too busy right now to take on any more copyedits or reviews. Good luck with the article, though! Scartol • Tok 02:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay; thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I completely forgot it could perhaps qualify. That's really cool. Hekerui (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help. I'm not sure if it will make it because the article is still in-universe, but it certainly meets the actual criteria, so we might as well give it a shot. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Pity. Hekerui (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yah, the byte change looked large enough but I guess that quite a bit of that was in references and the infobox. Ah, well. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So yes, if you did not read this elsewhere already... ;) Yes, I finally reinstalled my Dragon Archives CD-ROM about 15 minutes ago. :) So, if you don't have access to it yourself, and if you need me to look up anything, anything at all, from issues #1-250, just speak your mind and I will look it up (if I'm at home). :) The program comes with a search engine, so you don't necessarily need to know which issue you're looking for. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Haven't had access to this thing in over 2 years, since my computer went down... I don't remember it being this much of a memory hog though, it's really slowing my system down! But if I just use it here and there, it'll be no big deal. :) BOZ (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(By the way, wow and wow! Nothing I'd recommend getting involved with, but be prepared to see a huge shitstorm...) BOZ (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Great to hear that your computer's back up! Those Dragon archives will be very useful. Sorry to hear that it's a memory hog.

As for the links...

*sigh* –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation... I have a lot of other stuff to do on wiki at this time, so I don't think that I'll really get a chance to help, but if/whenever I have some more "spare" time I'll be sure to take a look! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, can you please restore this image you deleted and leave a note on my talk page when it's back? I'll pop up a fair use rationale for it (the person in it is dead so fair use is reasonable). Richard001 (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I was browsing through the Category:Unassessed_vital_articles and wanted to know why you added 1973 oil crisis and Abel Tasman to the Vital Articles list (not that there's anything wrong). I simply would like to know your rationale as to why you believe its a vital article.Smallman12q (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I tagged those using AWB while going through the expanded vital articles list; they had already been listed there. I would have tagged more pages except AWB seemed to have hit a bit of a hickup. Anyway, that list is really still underconstruction... feel free to add or remove things from it (and add or remove the banner from the article) as you feel is appropriate. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. I haven't really followed the vital articles project, I always assumed it was the most important 1000 articles, but I guess they've expanded it quite a bit. Thanks for the link.Smallman12q (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The "core" list is about 1000, at WP:VA, but there are quite a number of very important articles that never made it in to that list because of space limitations, so WP:VA/E was created so that there was a larger list. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 11:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll be adding a few to WP:VA/E in that case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

AutoEd

I just starting using it and I noticed that it sometimes picks up the wrong corrections like [[Emergency medical technician|EMT]]s to [[Emergency medical technician|EMTs]]. Is this a feature or a bug?Smallman12q (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a feature which is almost always beneficial, in my opinion. In edit mode, with your first example, you have to read "Emergency medical technician" (link), "EMT" (linkname), and "s" (link suffix). With your second example, it is easier to read because it is all in the brackets. MediaWiki parses both versions the same way, so they both display as EMTs. It's really just to make code easier to read, similar to how [[Dog|dogs]] is simplified to [[dog]]s; no difference it output, just some code simplification. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you put it that way, I understand. Thanks!Smallman12q (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help; feel free to let me know if you encounter any other problems. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Smallman12q (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you tag Aaron Sorkin as a vital article? Hekerui (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is related to the questions in #Vital articles, above. This would be for the same reasons as I describe there. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just found the extended list. Hekerui (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It was completely unnecessary, but I created WP:AutoEd/userbox which is basically combination of all the existing AutoEd userboxes, but with parameters to change the rendering. Hopefully I put it in the correct place and didn't irritate anyone in the process. Plastikspork (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with it, but you might like to post a quick message to VPM. These things tend to look good in retrospect. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea;

Done. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, exactly what I was imagining. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that; I wouldn't have posted there if you hadn't said anything, but making sure that there was some sort of announcement/request for input makes sense. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request a correction on the Boron page. In section "Characteristics" there is a phase diagram reproduced from our paper (Oganov et al., Nature 2009), but this is not reflected in the caption. Unfortunately, the editor NIMSOffice has personal interests not to give us credit. I am investigating possibilities to block NIMSOffice from editing Boron page due to conflict of interest (any suggestions welcome). In any case, if a figure is reproduced from our paper, we hope that proper credit can be given.

Furthermore, NIMSOffice made another sentence (also against us): "It is not clear yet whether the atomic bonding in this phase is partially ionic[11] or covalent[12]. " In fact, it has been shown by us [11] that while bonding is predominantly covalent, the partial ionic character is surprisingly important. Term "atomic bonding" is non-existent in chemistry. I suggest a sentence like this: "Chemical bonding in this phase, while predominantly covalent, has a surprisingly important partial ionic component [11]. "

Thanks a lot!

Artem R. Oganov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoganov (talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't really get involved in conflicts in a position where administrator powers are requested... you may wish to post something at WP:ANI to get other admins' attention. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that at some point CodeFixer (both regular and the plus version) stopped replacing "Image" with "File" (I'm using IE6, still). Other fixes seem to be fine. Is that a bug? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:59, May 8, 2009 (UTC)

It was actually removed because there is currently no consensus for the change, determined by discussion at WP:VPR, here, and (I think) and the CodeFixer.js/doc page, and a semi-automated script can't really be designed to make changes against consensus.

(as a side note, you may wish to consider using WP:AutoEd instead; it has almost identical functionality but is more customizable and expandable, and better maintained). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, OK. Out of habit, I keep blaming IE6 for every little thing that goes awry, but looks this time the blame was misplaced :) I'll check AutoEd some time next week. Are you the one I run to when IE6 makes a complete mess out of it, or should I go bug someone else? :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:05, May 8, 2009 (UTC)

You can bug me or bug a group of editors at WT:AutoEd. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll bug you (but do let me know when it becomes tiresome; I'll get lost then :)). I added autoEd to my monobook.js, and the tab shows up just fine. When I click on it, however, the only thing that happens is a box with the following error message: "AutoEd/core.js: autoEdFunctions is undefined". The message pops up both in IE6 and Opera. Any ideas on what may be wrong?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:33, May 11, 2009 (UTC)

~~This one's easy:~~ No it's not; I thought I knew what the problem was but apparently there's something else. I'm going to get into a little JavaScript-speak here, but I'll try to make it as readable as possible.

AutoEd/complete.js imports Wikipedia:AutoEd/core.js and a number of other "helper" scripts which allow it to work. In order to make the script more fully customizable, it is set up so that the "core" framework script at AutoEd/core.js runs a function which is not defined on that specific page; instead, each preset which imports the core framework defines the function. If the framework script is imported but the function isn't defined, it is designed to pop up with that error message.

AutoEd/complete.js works fine with that setup on Firefox 3, and because of what code was used I had assumed that it would work on most every browser (it's a completely different setup from things like AssessorTags). I do have one idea as to how this may be fixible, although I'm really not sure if it would work... I'm going to make the edit shortly, and then you could try purging your cache and using it again. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay; give it a shot. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about the tech-speak with me; I know the JavaScript basics, so that's not a problem (problem is that I don't like to dig into complex things when folks like you handle it better than I would ever be able to :)).

Anyway, purged the cache, tried autoEd again, still the same problem (in both browsers)... Sorry!

Also, don't bother with the talkback messages to me—I have your talk page watchlisted. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:07, May 11, 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... weird. I'll try to come up with a better workaround when I have some spare time; for now the following should work, you just won't see any updates to the code. I'll let you know when I think it's fixed.

First, copy the entire contents of Wikipedia:AutoEd/complete.js into your monobook.js page (don't importing it), excluding the comments containing source and /source tags. Next remove the line which imports Wikipedia:AutoEd/core.js. Go to the core page and copy all of that into your monbook.js page (once again, without the source and /source comments and tags). Finally, look for the following code and remove it:

if( typeof( autoEdFunctions ) == 'undefined' ) {
function autoEdFunctions() { alert('AutoEd/core.js: autoEdFunctions is undefined'); }
       autoEdTag = "";
       autoEdClick = false;
       autoEdMinor = false;
}

That should be a functioning work around until I have some more time to study this. If all of that doesn't work, AutoEd probably won't work at all on your browser (in which case I could try to stick some of the improvements into CodeFixer so that you can keep just using that. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that and will let you know how it goes. Sorry for so much trouble!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:54, May 11, 2009 (UTC)

I did as suggested (well, I think I did—would you mind taking a peek to see if I didn't screw something up?), and now I somehow have two autoEd tabs, both of which still produce an "AutoEd/core.js: autoEdFunctions is undefined" error when clicked. I am loads of fun, ain't I? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:23, May 12, 2009 (UTC)

Well, duh, I forgot to remove the original line importing the whole script. All is now well. I'll try out the script and will let you know of any problems if any. Thanks a bunch for all your help!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:27, May 12, 2009 (UTC)

Hey Drilnoth. I tried using AutoEd, but whenever I use it I get a javascript alert: "AutoEd/core.js: autoEdFunctions is undefined". Is this a known bug? – Quadell ^(talk) 20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is a browser problem... see #CodeFixer and WT:AutoEd. Plastikspork and I will try to fix this; for now the workaround that I describe above should work. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see. I got the error in Chrome, but it works fine it Firefox. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 00:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting. Thanks for the info. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing it might have something to do with the detection of autoEdFunctions(), as you indicated above. I will try to debug it on IE and Chrome when I get home later this evening. Plastikspork (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll try to work on it when I have time, too. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I confirmed the bug in Google Chrome and I was able to fix it, although my fix was probably more heavy-handed than it needed to be. If you comment out the entire if( typeof( autoEdFunctions ) == 'undefined' ) statement in 'core.js' and 'purge the browser cache' it works in Chrome. This shouldn't cause any problems in any other browsers since no-one should be including core.js without defining this function anyway. However, it was kind of nice to have it display a helpful error message. I am guessing the problem is that the commands were not being executed in the same order. I will try to do a more detailed analysis later. Note that debugging in Chrome is kind of a pain since you can't just reload the page when you are testing stuff. You have to clear the cache, unless there is a special forced-reload command that I am missing. I will check internet explorer, but I am not anticipating it will work. A preliminary test locked up the browser. Plastikspork (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(I think it's control-F5, incidentally.) – Quadell ^(talk) 12:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... well if removing that warning/notice lets it work better, it should be removed. Thanks for looking at this. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
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 21:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I have been editing the above reference article Zsuzsa_Mathe. The artist is my best friend. Found, that someone deleted uploaded images of artwork from the article, so I have placed them back.

Now, you have deleted them again.

Can you please advise me where can I find information or what shall I do so that completely legal artwork actually stays with the article?

Thank you very much indeed:

Attila —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asztro (talk • contribs) 11:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that these images were only allowed for non-commercial uses. Wikipedia is released under a "free license", meaning that anyone can use all of Wikipedia's content, including images, even for commercial purposes, without asking permission of anyone. For this reason we do not accept images that have a "non-commercial use only" restriction. If your friend is willing to allow anyone to use the images for any reason, including commercial reproduction, then we can use the images. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what Quadell said. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just training there. You know....--91.140.92.135 (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please use the Wikipedia sandbox if you are just testing. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I mean i'm training for the upcoming assault...--91.140.92.135 (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

– Quadell ^(talk) 13:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is extremely boring but your bot just ran over it completely and removed all the links to other wikis etc.

If you can't get a bot to work then don't run it. I am getting fed up with it.

I like small cleanup from bots etc but to remove twiki links is just plain wrong. If the bot can't do that it shouldn't be running.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have responded at User talk:DrilBot. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you (or anyone else who is working on that article) planning to make the corrections that I noted at the GAN? Per convention, I normally give seven days for those to make the necessary corrections, otherwise I cannot pass. It's getting to about seven days with no improvement on verifiability (the fair-use rationales are a rather easy fix and am not worried about that as much). Thank you, MuZemike 21:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; that kind of got put on the back burner. I'm currently doing quite a bit with a current FAC and have been getting my bot working; I probably won't have the time that I had thought I would. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I recently created a page on fremlins (friendly gremlins). I noticed that Wiki needed a page for them when I looked through the page on The Complete Book of Humanoids and saw that it didn't have articles for all the races. It is now marked for speedy deletion. If it does get deleted, could you userify it for me please so that I can do more work on it? As it is it's kind of weak...Ilphae (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Ilphae

I've responded at your talk page. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Nice one Quadell. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping you'll answer a question on whether HTML entities or Unicode characters are preferred for em and en dashes. Background: I was admiring some edits done by your DrilBot, and noticed that it changed · to · (and some other similar edits to replace HTML entities; good idea). That caught my attention because I recently noticed an edit where Unicode en dashes (–) were replaced with HTML entities (–). I spent quite a long time trying to find a policy or guideline so I could tell the user that HTML entities are deprecated. I'm sure I've seen semi-automated edits which have done the exact opposite of the particular editor, and I wanted to alert them. However, I could not find any discussion – MOS:DASH and WP:WikiProject Check Wikipedia are irritatingly unhelpful. Would you mind enlightening me: Is there a documented preferred style for en and em dash? I'll look here for any reply. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Drilnoth will have more information, but I believe this is partially addressed in Help:Special characters. On one hand, unicode may not be supported by older browsers. On the other hand, many search functions have problems with the HTML characters since they are often interpreted without the leading & and trailing colon. I don't know if either or both of these are still issues in the current Mediawiki server. I would be interested in hearing a more definitive answer as well. For me, the UNICODE looks better in edit mode and takes up fewer characters. Plastikspork (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the unicode characters because they take up less space in edit mode and (to be frank) don't look as ugly. I don't know if there is an actual policy or guideline with this information, but the help page that Plastikspork linked does have some information. There also does seem to be some level of consensus to use unicode characters because most automated scripts, such as Formatter, Advisor, AutoEd, and AWB, convert the entities into the unicode characters. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Seems crazy that the Check Wikipedia page should encourage changing certain entities to a Unicode character, yet say nothing about dashes (even if it said "dashes are a problem because editors can't agree"). The link "an edit" in my first para above shows an editor who is systematically changing dashes to entities ... perhaps you would like to explain your opinion to that person. Johnuniq (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(about the CHECKWIKI list): It actually does pick up dash entities, but that specific detection has been deactivated since there isn't any real consensus about this yet.

(about the editor) Unless a consensus is really established, rather than just being implied as it currently is, I'd agree that asking them to stop what you describe would be appropriate. However, at this time there really isn't a strong consensus either way so I'm not sure if it's really appropriate to say anything. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh... looking at some more diffs, maybe I will mention something. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but US copyright law says that a useful article cannot be copyrighted unless artistic aesthetic features are separable from its utilitarian features. A gun holster is not gonna cut it. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies; I had been unclear on this particular part of copyright law when I had deleted that image. If you provide a link I'll be happy to restore it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was on a picture that you changed from {{pd-self}} to {{Non-free 3D art}}. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah... my apologies. I go through so many images these days that I don't really remember what I did with any particular one of them. Feel free to change it back if you haven't already. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! – Quadell ^(talk) 10:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this edit supported by sources elsewhere in the article? Otherwise, I'm worried it might be OR - I think we had removed a similar statement once before for that reason. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh... good point. Just trying to figure out how to word that sentence so that it is coherent; I'll give it another try. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks better now. :) BOZ (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't cleared at least half of the 380,000 errors from the run through the new dump by this time tomorrow, I'll have you on a court martial, I swear. It's too depressing to look at, quite frankly. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Affirmative. I will being processing immediately. —DrilBot (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to leave a note, saying that I've seen the increased edit rate, and I understand the temporary nature of it, and I have no problems with it. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm completely willing to slow it down if it is going too fast, but I'd like to try and get through this massive list before the next huge database dump. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Woops, I just re-added a wikilink to Gamasutra in the Planescape: Torment article that you had recently removed. I thought I had just overlooked it when adding the ref. Anyway, I have a good reason for repeating wikilinks in the reference section (a bunch of other publishers/works are redundantly linked in the references as well, such as IGN, PC Gamer, GameSpy...). My thinking is that sometimes people will click the reference which brings them down to the reference section. Rather than have them search about the reference section for the one place we do provide a wikilink (or not see a wikilink at all, and assume there is no article on the subject), we should provide the wikilink in each ref the publisher/work appears in. That way they can immediately click through to the publisher/work if they are interested. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In truth, I agree with you completely; I just know that it's somewhere in the MOS. I don't really care either way. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you placed a deletion tag on that image. Sure, it doesn't have a copyright licence; but that's because although I have resorted to copy-paste to try and fix the licence, it refuses to display the template. For example, {{planiglobe}} works on this image, but doesn't work on mine. themaee ^talk 04:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. This is actually quite simple... File:Plunketts Creek Relief Map.PNG is located at Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not have that license tag. Since the license tag is there, I will move the image here to Wikimedia Commons and then that license tag can be used. Thanks for mentioning this! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 10:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Done –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 10:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Drilnoth,

I'm planning on running AWB to add {{DEFAULTSORT}} to certain Arabic names. While I'm running these anyway, I'd like to use AWB to run the Drilnoth code that cleans up articles in various non-controversial ways. How can I do this? Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point I haven't implemented any of my custom RegExp because I haven't been working on lists that need it, but I have had to deactivate some of the controversial fixes. If you go to Tools → Make Module, check "Enabled", insert the code in the collapse box below, and click the "Make Module" button (ensuring that C# 2.0 is selected as the language), it should deactivate the possibly controversial fixes (notably date ordinal changes, mdashes, reference reordering, and metadata sorting, which caused too many useless edits for DrilBot). You also want to de-check "general fixes" since this module basically replaces the standard gen fixes. I'd also de-check "Auto tag" if you're using a bot since automated tagging seems to be generally frowned upon.

More information Code needed ...

Code needed

WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers parser = new WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers();
WikiFunctions.Parse.HideText removeText = new WikiFunctions.Parse.HideText(false, true, false);
 
public string ProcessArticle(string ArticleText, string ArticleTitle, int wikiNamespace, out string Summary, out bool Skip)
{
	Skip = false;
	Summary = "";
 
	Article a = new Article(ArticleTitle);
	a.InitialiseLogListener("test", awb.TraceManager);
	a.OriginalArticleText = ArticleText;
 
	a.HideText(removeText);
 
	//a.FixHeaderErrors(parser, Variables.LangCode, false);
	a.SetDefaultSort(Variables.LangCode, false);
 
	a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix categories", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixCategories(a.ArticleText), true);
 
	a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix images", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixImages(a.ArticleText), true);
 
	a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix whitespace in links", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixLinkWhitespace(a.ArticleText, ArticleTitle), true);
 
	a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix syntax", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixSyntax(a.ArticleText), true, true);
 
	a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix temperatures", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixTemperatures(a.ArticleText), true);
 
	a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix non-breaking spaces", parser.FixNonBreakingSpaces(a.ArticleText), true);
 
	//a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix main article", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixMainArticle(a.ArticleText), true);
 
	a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix reference tags", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixReferenceListTags(a.ArticleText), true);
 
	a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix empty links and templates", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixEmptyLinksAndTemplates(a.ArticleText), true);
 
	a.AWBChangeArticleText("FixReferenceTags", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixReferenceTags(a.ArticleText), true);
 
	//a.AWBChangeArticleText("ReorderReferences", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.ReorderReferences(a.ArticleText), true);
 
	a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix empty references", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.SimplifyReferenceTags(a.ArticleText), true);
 
        if(a.IsMissingReferencesDisplay)
	  a.AWBChangeArticleText("Add missing {{reflist}}", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.AddMissingReflist(a.ArticleText), true, true);
 
	//a.AWBChangeArticleText("Mdashes", parser.Mdashes(a.ArticleText, ArticleTitle), true);
 
	a.FixLinks(false);
 
	a.BulletExternalLinks(false);
 
	a.AWBChangeArticleText("Remove empty comments", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.RemoveEmptyComments(a.ArticleText), false);

	//a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix Date Ordinals/Of", parser.FixDateOrdinalsAndOf(a.ArticleText, ArticleTitle), true, true);
 
	//a.AWBChangeArticleText("Sort meta data", parser.SortMetaData(a.ArticleText, ArticleTitle), true);
 
	a.EmboldenTitles(parser, false);
 
	a.AWBChangeArticleText("Format sticky links", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.StickyLinks(WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.SimplifyLinks(a.ArticleText)), true);
 
	a.AWBChangeArticleText("FixHeadings", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixHeadings(a.ArticleText, ArticleTitle), true);
 
	a.UnHideText(removeText);
 
	return a.ArticleText;
}

Close

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm going to be editing these pages anyway, to fix the DEFAULTSORT on the page, so I'm not worried about disabling minor fixes. In fact, I want to make as many minor fixes as possible, so long as I'll be editing the page anyway. (Why not, right?) I'll also be verifying each change manually, not using a bot, just because of the nature of the substitutions I'll be working on. Does this change your advice above? (I'm afraid I don't really follow the function calls in the collapsed section.) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah; I didn't realize that you were doing this manually. If that is the case I'd just use the normal general fixes... as I said, I haven't yet been using DrilBot to fix any of the errors that would need custom RegExp. Does it change the nature of my advice above? Well, yes. You can basically ignore my advice above. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you don't know of any way to incorporate AutoEd features into AWB? – Quadell ^(talk) 14:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That should be easy:

1. Find the AutoEd module(s) that you want to include changes from.

2. Open up AWB and enable find and replace. Click "Normal settings".

3. For each replacement you want to include from AutoEd, take the code for the replacement from AutoEd and plug it in. For example, the Wikipedia:AutoEd/wikilinks.js line

    str = str.replace(new RegExp('\\[\\[WIKTIONARY\:', 'gi'), '\[\[wikt\:');

would become "Find: \[\[WIKTIONARY\:" "Replace: \[\[wikt\:" (with the "Regex" checkbox enabled). Note that if the "new RegExp" function is use in the javascript, you should replace double backlashes with single backlashes in the "find", but not the "replace".

That should be all that you need to do for each one. Let me know if there are any problems. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Custom Modules, and I'm not a C# programmer, but it seems like I should be able to convert the javascript regexps of Wikipedia:AutoEd/wikilinks.js etc. into C# regexps in a custom module. Right? After all, there will be a lot of them, and putting them all in my list of "find and replace" options would be very bulky... especially when a given task will have its own find-and-replaces. (I'll probably want to have a preset batch of basic, uncontroversial changes to make whenever I'm editing a page in AWB anyway.) But none of the examples at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Custom Modules show how to replace in a regexp in C#. Some show search-only regexps, but that's not the same. Are you the right person to ask about this? All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert C# programmer either, but from my reading of articles on the C# string class, it appears to be nearly identical to Javascript. I would say you could do something like ArticleText = ArticleText.replace(/\[\[WIKTIONARY:/gi, '[[wikt:');. In other words, just replace 'str' with the name given the string you want to modify, which in the examples appears to be ArticleText. I could be completely wrong here, as I have no means of testing this right now. Plastikspork (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about not noticing your question earlier Quadell. Plastikspork is probably correct... I know next to nothing about C#, but what he said likely works... but it might not. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

AutoEd

AutoEd

Note to self

Talk to me

&nbsp;??? Eric de Kolb

ec

Dave Arneson

CodeFixer, dashes, and Church-Turing thesis

fyi

Hey Driloth, this is Eric de Kolb

Outline of Mexico

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Eric de Kolb Again

File:IMG_0339_Desktop.jpg

The above section became too large for my phone to edit.&nbsp;:(

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_April_12#Hikari_Kamiyo.jpg

From EricdeKolb

Eric de Kolb

Recognition

here are some salvador dali sites that are copyrighted

assessortags.js

D&amp;D watchlist

New Question from Eric de Kolb

Collaboration

MarbleMadnessCabinet.png

Look at what they said at Permissions

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

speedy delete

Oooh, lookie what I made!

Ravenloft (module) copyedit?

Planescape: Torment in PC Gamer

Apostrophe-S

I missed some speedy deletes

Geber

Just to let you know...

Assessortag.js

Umber Hulk in Terminator

D&amp;D Portal

Plot citations

Neverwinter Nights 2

Protect a template

Planescape

DYK

Dragon archives

GA Sweeps invitation

File:DavidLange.jpg

Vital articles

Aaron Sorkin

superuserbox

re: Drilbot

request for a correction

CodeFixer

AutoEd

Wikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

re: Zsuzsa Mathe bio article

Hi

Trun, Orne

Neverwinter Nights 2

Fremlins

HTML entities

Wii Zapper

minor

Planescape question

DrilBot, we need you.

Overlinkage in reference section

File:AlisoCreekReliefMap.jpg

Drilbot and AWB: howto?

??? Eric de Kolb

The above section became too large for my phone to edit. :(

D&D watchlist

D&D Portal