Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Here's my opinion. I am somewhere in the middle. Trivial edits should be avoided while using AWB. We downed trivial edits to those which don't change the rendering. Carl has right on this. It's also right that most of the things done right now can be done while doing other stuff. More Slowly but still. There is something interesting though in Kumioko's edits. Mass removal of empty parameters helps rendering time. Templates are rendered much faster. I am trying to find someone to perform a database scan to get an idea if the work it has to be done. If the edits are few, I guess Kumioko doesn't need a bot approval. Otherwise, we 'll have to think of a solution. -- ] (]) 20:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's my opinion. I am somewhere in the middle. Trivial edits should be avoided while using AWB. We downed trivial edits to those which don't change the rendering. Carl has right on this. It's also right that most of the things done right now can be done while doing other stuff. More Slowly but still. There is something interesting though in Kumioko's edits. Mass removal of empty parameters helps rendering time. Templates are rendered much faster. I am trying to find someone to perform a database scan to get an idea if the work it has to be done. If the edits are few, I guess Kumioko doesn't need a bot approval. Otherwise, we 'll have to think of a solution. -- ] (]) 20:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:I am down to about 347 from 2200+ that were on articles relating to WikiProject United States. --] (]) 20:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Minor edits such as that just replace redirects and change whitespace are disallowed by the AWB rules. You need to make sure that AWB edits are only saved if there is a substantive change to the page. (I realize that the DC project isn't a redirect at the moment, but it would be much easier to edit the DC banner to simply call the US banner with appropriate parameters, rather than editing thousands of pages to do the replacement.)
Also, in this edit , one of the replacements of "Image:" was not in an image tag, it was in a section header. Those probably shouldn't be changed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this type of standardization edit is disallowed but I admit that some users don't think they are needed.
I don't claim to be an expert in Wikiproject template programming but I don't think that jsut adding the category will accomplish what we are trying to do with this.
On the image issue that is a little strange but it is still in keeping with the goal of replacing the old "Image" naming schema with the new "File" scheme so I think this is ok. --Kumioko (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
@Carl:I think there is a misunderstanding on the first edit. One part of the edit isn't just bypassing redirect but merging a WikiProject to another.
Ok but why does it matter differently on talk pages? If the new standard is File vice Image then it should be uniform across namespaces. Otherwise we'll have remnants of the old file structure to infiniti!. --Kumioko (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Because what you changed is a comment and some people (or bot owners) get annoyed if you fix their comments even if they have typographical mistkaes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to seem argumentative here but editors get annoyed with just about any edit these days. Its seems any use of AWB, a bot or just editing an article they feel strongly about in any way even manually is enough to annoy at least one or 2. I don't mean to seem like I have a bad attitude about this but if I stop making a certain edit, based on the comments of one or 2. I wouldn't be able to edit and may as well watch TV. So although I do see your reasoning I don't think that annoying an editor or filling up watchlists are good enough reasons to not make an edit. I understand its just a lowly talk page and I certainly understand the typo fix comment (I try not to make those on talk pages by the way) but I thikn this is different. For one its linking to another name space and isn't just a typo or redirect and it is in fact a deprecated namespace that we should be working towards switching over. --Kumioko (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The principle at work is that it's considered bad form by many to alter other's comments on a talk page. Altering their contributions in an article is what the project is all about at its core, but any edits in the talk namespaces to others' comments looks like you're altering their meaning/intent/etc. If you're just changing how a graphic is displayed, that's a whole 'nother issue. Imzadi1979→00:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I am working on improving the article for William F. Dean and have basically everything I need, but I've had a very difficult time finding all of his awards and decorations. I noticed on a previous revision you noted a number of other medals he was awarded that I can't confirm. Do you have any info that could help me out? Thanks. —Ed!03:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I found Dean's bio and decorations here on veterantributes.org. How reliable is this site? I see a lot of other articles use it, including GAs but I don't know how to establish its credibility. —Ed!05:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I would say its middle of the road as far as reliability. I would gauge it in the same caliber as Arlington Cemetery.org. Its ok to use if you can't find it anywhere else and it'll probably pass GA and maybe A class but its doubtful it'll fly for FA. It might though I'm not sure. I would use it but if you find another with the same info thats more reliable use that. I would think that his book would list his awards but he was a pretty humble guy so maybe not. As far as gauging credibility I'm not sure but in this case I think its ok. I hope this helps a little. --Kumioko (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, his book doesn't even list his DSC. I'll use it unless someone at GAN or ACR objects then. Thanks! —Ed!05:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure what you intend to do at the top of this talk page, but it is messing up the code. Can you discuss your proposal on the talk page first so we can help you? Thanks! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Thanks for letting me know. Mostly I was trying to replace WPDC with WPUS/DC and standardize the templates. I just double checked the edit and it worked this time. The problem was when I removed the collapsed to allow the WikiProjects to be visible. --Kumioko (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Please stop DC-tagging WMATA stations for time being
Please stop DC-tagging WMATA stations for the time being. I tagged all of the Maryland stations for Maryland last night, replacing the earlier DC tagging, and then today, your tagging work came through and re-added the DC tag alongside the Maryland tag. So if you would please hold off on this for now, while we have a discussion at WPDC's talk page that I know you're aware of (since you participated in it), I would appreciate it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that. If I tagged anymore it was an accident other than converting the rest from DC to US. I am done converting DC to US now though so I am going to start in on tagging the DC related articles that hadn't been tagged yet. I will exclude the Metro stations for now as you ask but I still think that the ones in DC proper should have the DC tag in addition to the WMATA tag. --Kumioko (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a moot point regarding the Metro stations, as they're all tagged now. Also, I think you may have misunderstood me regarding what tags should go where. I'm not saying that stations in DC proper shouldn't be tagged with the DC tag as well as the WMATA tag. They absolutely should have both, because they're different projects with different scopes. I was specifically referring to a few edits (specifically, this one, this one, and this one) where the most current version of the DC tag was reinstated alongside the Maryland tag the DC tag had previously been removed (having been replaced by the Maryland tag). In other words, you made two sweeps. I think the tagging was already wrong when you went the first time around, and so your first sweep just updated the tag that shouldn't have been there in the first place (i.e. not your fault). The second sweep, I find harder to explain away, and that's the one that concerns me.
Otherwise, addressing some comments you made on my talk page (and it seems fit that I just address it all in one response)...
If my tag-switching last night overreached, I apologize, and can explain. I was perhaps a little too tired to edit last night, and actually fell asleep on the switch, if you can imagine that. Not "at the switch", but "on the switch". I literally fell asleep with my finger leaning on the button while running AWB, and so while I finished the article list, I fear I was sound asleep for much of it. At least you know I'm not telling you a tale - you can't make stuff like that up.
Lastly, the category... my intention with the project category was to quickly cluster the station articles together in order to do the re-tagging. It unfortunately didn't populate quickly enough, so I moved to other methods to do the work. I have a feeling, however, that the category will be helpful overall, and so it might be worthwhile to just leave it in place. If not, I'll just G7 it and be done with it.
Okay, when you added the Superfunds, it was missing the "|" after the word Superfunds, see: . It should have been {{{Superfunds|}}}. But you fixed it when you added the alt parameter later on, so it's fine now! --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I've put in for the WPDC template to redirect to WPUSA, because it looks like you updated all the talk page templates. I updated the /doc pg for now, and requested the DC template to be unprotected. BTW, how in the world are you tagging all those talk pages?? Do you have a tool to do it??!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks and yes I use AWB. I use several different things to do what I need. In some cases I just use the built in find and replace functionality or general fixes built into AWB. I also built a custom module that cleans up the redirects for the WikiProject templates. You can see that here. I also have another group of fixes that I have on my computer (they could cause problems and need to be watched so I didn't put them in my talk page group in my userspace) that does some other things like move some of the non wikiprojet templates (like Article history, DYK, Image requested, etc) out of the WikiProjectBannerShell or above or below it as appropriate (Article history, talk page, skip to talk and some others go above, things like image requested and DYK's go below). I hope this helps and thanks again for the help with the coding of the WPBS template. --Kumioko (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
One more thing we need to tidy up, the peer review for "Misplaced Pages:WikiProject District of Columbia/Peer review" won't work anymore because we redirected the template and the WPUSA template doesn't have it now. Do you think we should add it to WPUSA? Otherwise, I need to delete the peer review pg and related categories, in order to clean up. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh I wasn't really aware that might happen. I think having a peer review page would be useful.I think we should move it under WPUS and I will create a tab for it. Since the project is getting more active by the minute its something that could be hugely beneficial. --Kumioko (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, you could just do a page move, but the parameters need to be added to the template. Are you going to do that, or do you want me to do it? --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:JBLM McChord Field, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. See WP:TPO (first paragraph) and the first to last bullet in WP:HEADSrobak (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
You section header edits to 2 other people's contributions were unnecessary and ineffective, as per the bullet in WP:HEAD which I indicated previously. To that effect - those section headers were created and formatted the way they were by using the New Section Tool at the top of each WP Talk page. If you believe this formatting to be in error, you may wish to pursue having the hard coding of WP's integrated editor altered. Srobak (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you need to take a closer look at the edit I made. Yes I removed the spaces from before and after the ='s in the sections but only because I was already making a more significant edit at the same time, which in this case, was replacing {{Wikiproject Superfunds}} with {{WikiProject United States}} with the Superfunds parameter and importance. --Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, you were rather unclear in your statement. Removing the extra spaces is allowed as long as there is a more significant edit at the same time. We shouldn't edit the page solely to remove them but if were there already its ok. --Kumioko (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Again - those spaces were put there automagically by the New Section Tool located at the top of each WP Talk page (the + symbol). Consequently - you will find literally millions of these formats on WP and they will increase exponentially far more than users will be able to eliminate them. If you believe this type of format to be in error, you may wish to pursue having the hard coding of WP's integrated editor altered. However - functionally there is no difference between a spaced and non-spaced section header, as per WP:HEAD. Srobak (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
So by your own admittance then it does no harm to the article or talk page if, in the course of other more significant edits I cleanup the section headers as well. Also bear in mind I have done this about 100, 000 (literally, not figuratively) times or so already and this is the first time that I can remember anyone ever mentioning this. Also, you have to read all the instructions not just pick out the things you want to make your point. For example, per the instructions:
Spaces between the == and the heading text are optional
Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. I would argue that it is easier to read the headings when thier not surrounded by a bunch of extra spaces.
Fixing layout errors. Although this isn't an error per sey having spaces in the heading can be problematic
It requires extra coding to do the same task when using bots and automated tools.
With that said I appreciate you taking the time to comment about what you believe to be an issue, however, since it wasn't in error, did exactly what I wanted it to do when I wanted to do it (meaning it wasn't done alone but with another major edit) and it has never come up in my 6 years and 174, 000+ edits I am going to continue making this particular edut. I don't mean for this to sound bad but no matter how I write it the tone seems the same, but its not meant to be. If I stopped making an edit every time 1 editor had issue with 1 type of edit I wouldn't be able to do much. I suggest if you feel this is occassion warrants attention leave an incidient report at ANI and we can spend the next few days to weeks discussing it. If you find any other changes that cause you concern or you feel are in error please let me know and I would be happy to discuss. There have been occassions were I did a bad edit or made a bad assumption/interpretion of the rules and was wrong. Cheers and happy editing. --Kumioko (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The "cleanup" of section headers would require them to be dirty in the first place. In the course of your doing this about 100,000 times (some in talk pages, where again the very first paragraph of WP:TPO applies), you seem to have missed the hundred or so such "formatting errors" contained within your own talk page. While you would argue that section headers are easier to read without spaces - I would argue that the opposite is true, as it makes them stand out more when scrolling through WP article code. Either way - it is completely subjective. As you refer to the spacing as both "erroneous" and "problematic" - this seems to indicate that you believe the hard coding in WP's integrated editor to be faulty, as it is solely responsible for the addition of the spaces. As the people responsible for the existence of this feature likely tested it exhaustively before implementation - long before you or I ever existed here - I would be inclined to disagree with that notion. However - you are still welcome and encouraged to take it up with the coders and developers, especially as there are more automatically generated spaces added in a single day than you remove in an entire month. Barring that - you are of course also welcome to continue down your path of "editing" out the erroneous and problematic spaces - in talk pages no less. I think a lot of people would find that editors could make much more effective use of their time than manually scrolling through pages and deleting non-detrimental spaces. The fact that it is done on talk pages - which per guidelines "are not necessary to bring to publishing standards" drives home that point. Good day. Srobak (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I really have no intention of continuing to argue the symantics of whether we should or shouldn't do these edits but to clarify a couple specific points you mention:
I do not normall edit user pages or their talk pages that would be in bad form as you say.
I don't think the editor is faulty but I don't think we should be adding extra spaces for every single section in every single page that gets created either and since the rules leave it open as to wether its needed or not I choose to make them go when I make other edits. This reduces the size of the page (in some cases significantly, especially when you add up multiple snapshots). I also can't speak for how well they tested it. I suspect they didn't put a lot of time into analyzing whether its better to have an extra space before or after an = since they were likley working on bigger problems at the same time. I honestly don't know though.
I am not "manually" scrolling through the talk page. I use an App called AWB that allows me to edit things like that very quickly by using find and replace logic.
As far as using my time better, again thats subjective. Its my time so who cares how I use it.
Also, your comments that I don't know what I'm talking about don't carry much weight especially since I did more edits in the last 2 days than you've done in the whole 2 years you've been editing WP so when your going to scold someone on their editing habits or knowledge you should probably glance at their edit history or count first. Perhaps if you would have asked what I was up to rather than dropping a standard welcome to Misplaced Pages message and an ambiguously worded response (that I had to get clarified) it would have been more effective. --Kumioko (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
No problem I can do that. I changed it to Add or Cleanup talk page templates, formatting template/section order &general fixes using AWB (7474)--Kumioko (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Kumioko. I noticed you recently put a notice at File talk:Knot-graphic-stub.jpg saying that the associated image, an icon representing a knot (seen at the right), is within the scope of WikiProject United States. I am curious what it is about this image that makes it of interest to those WikiProject members. It is an unused image that has nothing to do with the United States in particular, except for the fact that it originally came from a Web page hosted on a United States Navy server. Are you implying that any content on Misplaced Pages that originally came from a United States federal government source should be within the purview of WikiProject United States? That seems a bit excessive to me. —Bkell (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Please feel free to untag that one if you want. I tagged it because it fell under the United States Navy Category but I didn't realize that the list contained files like this that didn't really pertain. I'll take a look at the list and see if there are any more. Good catch and please let me know if you see anything else like this. --Kumioko (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
You are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Wikify. As agreed upon by the project, all members will be required to confirm their membership by February 1, 2010. If you are still interested in assisting with the project, please add yourself to the list at this page—this will renew your membership of WikiProject Wikify.
Eastern > Washington WP_Washington_WP-2010-12-24T01:06:00.000Z">
If this goes ahead, are you any good with the meta template that creates the banner, so that we can create an Eastern Washington task force? Then either I can have you, or go over to bot requests to have current pages tagged w/ WP EW moved to the Washington project tag w/ the taskforce identified. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)_Washington_WP">
_Washington_WP">
Yeah thats no problem, I just did that with three for WPUS. Funandtvl does too. Either way just let me know I'd be happy to help. I would suggest looking at doing the same thing for WPSeattle and WPSeattle Mariners at some point as well. --Kumioko (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I am working on Seattle. An activity check is going on right now, then I will propose it after the first of the year. WP Seattle Mariners is already a task force of the Baseball WikiProject, and is tagged under a task force of the Baseball tag. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Your recent notification messages were not neutral. Please keep in mind WP:CANVASS and WP:FORUMSHOP when making WikiProject notifications. Personally I don't see why these are needed since the discussion has attracted a fair amount of participation (even if it may not be going your way). ThemFromSpace17:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
My comment was because it comes up every other month. The last time was just on Oct 17, before that in Aug and before that in early July. Its rediculous but your right WP:CANVASS and WP:FORUMSHOP are exactly whats going on here but not from me. --Kumioko (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Changing Wikiproject to WP
I understand what you mean. I would like to point out that it should start with the WikiProject sections, whatever the subject is to make the banner invalid when shortened to "WP subject here". Yes, some do become invalid once shortened to "WP subject here". That way, the "users" who are trying to make it appear to be "WikiProject subject here" much easier job. It should not just be individuals being warned, it should be a "global" Misplaced Pages change to all WikiProject banners. No offence is intended, only giving a valid reason why WikiProject can be shortened to "WP" and really it has nothing to do with me. It's the "WP subjects here" and Misplaced Pages itself, otherwise why can they be shortened? Feedback and a change in policy would be appreciated. I do understand what you mean, honestly. Adamdaley (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's say that the "Terrorism" portal was (for example) "WikiProject Terrorism|class=|importance=" banner, why would they abbreviate it to "WP Terrorism|class=|importance=", if it should be the first stated example? The second would be show up as invalid on a preview of the page before saving. In my opinion, if the committee, board, adminstrators, council of Misplaced Pages is trying to make the "WikiProject Terrorism|class=|importance=" (example) for all portals or subjects covered, then shouldn't they and as well contributors (regular users) have their opinion heard? Adamdaley (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Im sorry I think your going to have to break this down Mr. Potato head style because I still do not understand what he point is. --Kumioko (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Before things get started over again like before. I have noticed the little errors I made, basically I chose the wrong word for the image/file or picture for the infobox. I will try my best to remember this error I have made and try and keep it from happening. Adamdaley (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Portal:DC
I've added an "ifeq" parser function to make the US portal change to the DC one. In the top five TFs, one has to use an ifeq argument. It looks like in the TF hooks, that the function is already there. So if there are more portal variations for the 1st five TFs, the ifeq will have to be changed. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if u are able and willing and interested to develop/run the bot needed for NRIS reference replacements, as discussed at wt:NRHP#Please change the standard citation to omit the link? Not sure of how the process should work, because i understand any bot request has to be approved. So I'll open a discussion section at wp:botrequest, could you comment there? Thanks already for your helpful participation in the discussion. --Doncram (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe Ill have to take a look and see if what the feasaibility is. I looked at that a little before and I had some concerns but I can't remember at the moment what they were. --Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much everyone except me thinks it shouldn't be used. In fact they went and creates an external links Cheatsheet.Guideline that discusses it as well here. If you are referring to my deletion of several Find a grave links though I stopped already but if you graze through the monstrous discussion (and several that have been submitted previously about the site) its only a matter of time before the site gets banned and someone starts to delink them all. --Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Kumioko. I think it's best to wait until it becomes policy/guidance, before removal commences (if, indeed there is a consensus about it)! Have a great 2011. Lugnuts (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Kumioko! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Misplaced Pages, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
Thanks for the invite, but I must admit that I hadn't even noticed the project had lapsed. I had my name on the old list, which I'm guessing you used to send out the invites? Anyway, I'm still going to mostly focus on military history, but if you see something that I might be able to help on, throw this dog a bone! bahamut0013deeds15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I partially am using that list as well as the lists of all 200 of the US related projects plus a few other things. When I started looking through the old member listing there were so many that were retired, inactive or blocked I thought it would be better just to start over. The list I am working with has about 2000 users on it so itll take me a couple days to send them all out. If I get 10% Ill be happy. Will be sure to let you know. Once I get the Members list updated the next thing I want to bring up for discussion is a content drive of some kind. Happy new year. --Kumioko (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
There is already an invitation/welcoming template for WPUS, see {{WPUS Invite}}. That template should be used (transcluded) onto prospective members' pages, not the full hard coding. Please feel free to update it with your revised wording!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks and your right. I only did it differently this first time because the wording wasn't quite inline with what I wanted to do and I didn't want to completely change the wording of the template. I was going to use the template from this point forward after this initial run through. Thanks for fixing all the stuff with LOC by the way. I didn't realize I had made so many mistakes. --Kumioko (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a FYI, the parameter answers, such as yes/Yes, need to be in lower, not upper case, as in "DC=yes". Otherwise, the portal change is not going to work. I don't know the parser functions well enough to allow for an upper case "Yes". The default case for parameter answers is usually lower case. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Good news, you don't have to change all the "Yes" stuff to lower case, redrose64 helped me out, and I've updated the WPUSA template. However, in the future, when tagging, please use lower case yes/no. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI-I've revised the name for the LOC mainpage to be just .../LOC, so that the subpages will show a link to both the USA and LOC project mainpages. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This seems like an inordinately large 'project'. Aren't we biting off more than we can chew? It would seem that the many sub-projects would be covering MOST of the subject. I keep reading the project page, yet i can't seem to find it's goal or parameters, am i missing the point of the project?EraserGirl (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Good comments, Well your right in the sense that the subprojects could do some of it. The problem is that 1) there are over 200 of them and 2) many are inactive. In fact only about 25 are truly active. You are correct that it is a large project but so is MILHIST, WPBiography and several others. WPBiography has over 800, 000 articles and its only broke up into about 6 topic areas. This one would potentially have over 75 but it could have as many as 3 or 400, 000 articles I admit. Your right the goal and parameters are in need of development. DO you have any suggestions? --Kumioko (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite, but my plate is full. BTW, I would not use WP:Biography as an example of a good project. IMO, it suffers from being overly large and seems to be unable to do anything much besides tag articles with its tag. I suggest that you focus your activities very narrowly and don't go putting a project tag on hundreds of thousands of articles that the project will not maintain. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, Ssilvers is correct a more NARROW focus would be more successful, once certainly can't tag everything on WP with this project tag just because it falls within the US aegis. There is no way any one small group can do much for a project so big. Did you have any specific thing in mind when you started the invites? EraserGirl (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
In this case I disagree with tha narrower scope. We haev 200+ projects with narrower scopes already and most are inactive or ineffective. Below are some of the my goals there are quite a few actually,
) I wanted to try and and get some of the 200+ projects working together more instead of everyone working independently with different rules and guidelines. For some of the inactive ones I want to eliminate them completely. If a project only has 30 articles in its scope, is in active and hasn't been active for over a year there is no need to keep it IMO.
I wanted to make sure that the articles that fall under an inactive project or don't have a US related project tag at all have one
I wanted to build up content relating to US topics
) Get an active pool of editors (were well on our way to this already) and get some discussions going about US related things as well as central place to discuss US related issues.
Cleanup articles needing things like infoboxes, have maintenance tags, unreferenced BLP's (I have already done a couple hundred in the last month or so)
add missing articles (more than 1000 Medal of Honor recipients still need articles, about 50, 000 Historic places, etc)
Ensure that all the US related content is properly assessed and prioritized. (About 1300 left from about 5000 and thats after starting with only about 9000 articles)
And many more.
To go back to your comment about the scope though. I don't really have a problem with having a large scope and the knowledge we can't address every single issue. But if the articles are tagged with WPUS and grouped sufficiently by Topic (ie DC, US counties, Colorado, etc) and we have a large pool of active users with different interests and areas of expertise (we have about 100 in 2 days out of the 2600+ I invited to participate) there is a good chance that someone in the group will notice it and take action.
I admit that we are still working out the details of the project but now that the recruitment effort is over my next project is to do two things:
to reinvigorate the United States portal
Organize a content improvement drive. This should be important enough to constitute a US scope and at the same time be broad enough to encompass other US related projects and areas of expertise/interest. One that has been suggested that I like and that I think is a good starting point is improving articles related to the President of the US. This could have a narrow scope and only apply to the biographical articles but this would push some users away from the drive when we want to foster maximum cooperation. I think with slightly more effort we could coordinate with some of the other subprojects such as NRHP, US presidents, Barack Obama, etc and expand the scope to include all US president related articles (There are at least a couple hundred depending on how we define it but I was thinking presidents, important landmarks related to them like the White House and Camp David, the First family, etc). This could include:
Improving the articles class (for example. stub to start, Start to GA, GA to FA)
Ensure all President related biographies have persondata and infoboxes
Make sure any maintenance tags are addressed including BLP related matters
Add articles for things that are missing that relate to the topic
IMO should include images, (ie add them if needed, submit to be a featured image if appropriate, cleanup the image, move it to commons if appropriate, make sure it has the needed categories and tags, etc)
Of course this is just an example and we could do it on a number of other things but the point as I see it is that if we establish a collaboration for a period of time (I was thinking a month because I think a week is too short) we can then do improvements to various areas needing attention. And again that collaboration should be broad enough to draw people from various areas of interest rather than just focus on biographies or one narrow topic which will only draws a specific group.
Additionally, I have been signing up various bots (and have a bot request (the first of several planned) of my own currently pending) to address a multitude of items that can bot bot taskable to free us up as much as possible to concentrate our efforts on things that can't be done by bot such as expanding articles, organizeing the drives, etc. --Kumioko (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion on US-related articles: give high-trafficked articles priority
If there's a US-related article with high traffic stats, with daily readership of 1000+ readers or more, but the article is in poor shape, let me know. I believe a general priority here at WP is doing stuff that gets read.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree in part but I also think we should include high importance as well. As a start here is a link to a place where we can view the most viewed articles for the project.
Glad to be part of the team! I'll be sure to shoot you a message if I have any questions or concerns. Thanks for the warm welcome. -Sharkface/C22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello Kumioko Qui Tam Relator here
How can I be of assistance in helping on Misplaced Pages in it's quest for research in some of the articles posted on Misplaced Pages.Qui Tam Relator (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the invite to WP USA, but right now I really don't have the time to commit to another Wikiproject. Thank you for inviting me, and when I have more time I will reconsider the offer. —Voltin00:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, neither of the portals I work with are featured (P:USMC & P:BB). I might take a look later this week and see if there is anything I can do, but I'm not sure I can really adopt another portal for long term. bahamut0013deeds12:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.
Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.
An article that you have been involved in editing, Fred Green, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Quick question regarding findagrave.com
Just a quick question: Would you be fine if I'd remove the findagrave.com link from featured and good articles for now? As far as I can tell, you're mostly worried about losing possible sourcing information, which is very unlikely to happen in featured and good articles. --Conti|✉17:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
For the most part it would be find with the featured ones however I would suggest taking a look to see if there is anything in the Find a grave article that would add value to the article such as additional pictures we don't already haev and links to the Find a grave articles of relatives. If you find an Fa that uses it as a reference it should be changed to be something else (but you shouldn't find any for A, FA or FL class articles). I found a couple of GA's that use Find a grave as a srouce that need to be reviewed but again in the case where its an external link as long as it doesn't have anything extra thats fine with me. --Kumioko (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course I'll still look at the findagrave.com link before removing it, just in case. I'll also simply not touch any references at all, only external links. --Conti|✉18:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thats fine, I do think we need to address the references. Don't be surprised if other editors start to appear and ask questions when you start deleting those links though. Sinc the discussions are ongoing and a clear consensus still has not been raised I envision it won't take long before comments start rolling in. --Kumioko (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Me too, although it hasn't moved as quickly as either of us hoped it feels as though we are at least making some steps in the right direction. That is eliminating the link when not needed but not banning it completely from the site either. --Kumioko (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject United States/Quality content
Hi- it's not the category that's causing the problem, this is the problematic revision: . I've seen this happen before, but I haven't figured it out either, yet! --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Unitron as part of Wikiproject United States?
I fail to see how the Unitron article is closely enough related to the scope of WikiProject United States that it should be included in that project. If articles this loosely associated to "the United States" fall under the scope of that project, the shear number of articles that would then qualify similarly would seem to undermine the whole project. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Well your probably right that it is extremely low on the National importance spectrum but it got tagged because it wasn't already tagged with any US banner and because I was tagging a large group of articles starting with United States. I tagged a few articles before and after that group with the thinking that since they didn't already have a US tag at least now they would have one, even if it was low on the scope. If you think it should be New York then by all means change it. --Kumioko (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Misplaced Pages:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.
The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi-Thank you for the barnstar!! I've created a new category just for the USA portal's pages, see: Category:United States portal. I tried to tag as many pages as possible within the category (they need to be within noinclude tags on a portal subpage). However, there are a lot of subpages out there, see: . I'm not sure at this point whether they work with the portal box skeleton template and the random subpages template or not, so will continue to sort it out! --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Perseus, Sonof Zeus has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 19:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject District of Columbia for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog to 18,000 articles and clear the 2008 backlog, and we need your help! Top participants in the drive will receive barnstars for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Note: The drive starts February 1, but you can sign up today!
Thanks for categorizing all the subpages for the portal! Yes, of course, if there is an automatic way to display DYKs, OTDs, etc., by all means, that should be taken advantage of. Now that we have all the subpages in one place, then we can see which ones are needed or not. I'll have to check if the random subpages templates are being used or not, when the portal was set up; I'm sure the portal box templates have been improved since then. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The random pages are being used for several things and a bot populates the News from Wikinews. I think this was added a couple yers ago so its very possible that there are improvements we coudl take advantage of. --Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
In reply to a comment of yours on moonriddengirls talkpage
Hi, I did not want to disturb Moonriddengirls talkpage with this, but the following comment from you really stung me:
Thats what I thought. And I am confident that, as in the past, they were not "reviewed" and and simply deleted. Its a shame really. I guess if knowone else cares I shouldn't either. Its not like anyone actually reads these articles anyway! --Kumioko (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
All articles in a CCI are manually reviewed for copyright problems. Presumptive deletion is only used in cases where there is strong evidence of copying, but no source can be located. Deletion of an article for copyright problems is a last resort measure and not done unless absolutely necessary. Your accusation that articles were deleted without review is baseless as well as offensive to all editors who contribute to the thankless job of copyright cleanup. Yoenit (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Although I agree that it is an important and thankless I have witnessed on numorous occassions (including an incident were VMbot was dubiously unleashed) articles being deleted without review because of "CCI" issues and on the assumption that if an editor was found guilty of Copy vio then it can be assumed that all edits they did were copyvio. My intnent was not to be offensive however if the reviewer isn't going to do the job properly then they should leave it to someone else because it just makes more work for others in recreating articles (or fixing them if its due to an improper reversion or deletion) for no reason. Additionally, a lot of the Copyvio's seem to be based on results from Corenbot which I have personally witnessed has a high degree of false positives and when those issues are raised on the owners talk page are either ignored or dismissed with comments. My intent really isn't to piss people off however I am getting rather tired of fixing or recreating articles because someone lazily deleted it because a CCI violator added an external link or some other minor edit without reviewing it first. --Kumioko (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Happy Kumioko's Day!
Kumioko has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Kumioko's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, Kumioko!
So great to meet you too! Lots of Misplaced Pages goodness to be had. Please send me a link to the topics identified by the American Art Museum so I can take a gander :) Also, you make such a great handle model: File:WikiXDC_Cupcakes_A.jpg OMNOMNOMNONOMNOM Missvain (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Wikify's Coordinator Election
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's Project Coordinator Election. There are 5 nominees for coordinator positions; Guoguo12, Nolelover, Mono, Sumsum2010, and WikiCopter. If you have a spare moment, please come and help us choose coordinators. Remember, voting ends February 1, 2011. Thanks!
For having one hell a User page! I don't know what's more impressive, the work you've done on Misplaced Pages in general or just your awesome user page ;-) Keep up the good work!! Missvain (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm experimenting with the idea of adding a task force for Archives of American Art articles, and adding the task force to {{Template:SI-related}}. Adding a task force seems like a good way to get articles categorized specifically for Archives of American Art and allow us to generate a summary table like .
I'm not the best at working with template markup, but have something at {{Template:SI-related2}}. It's not showing the quality rating for the task force, and not sure the best way to organize the parameters. If you are good with templates and want to look at this and improve it, that would be awesome. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem I can fix that up for ya. I also just added the rest of the organizations from the original list. I created a separate page for Organizational topics and then added that above the link you gave to my page. I am going to break it into a couple groups because its over 250K and it doesn't even have them all yet. --Kumioko (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Generic edit summaries]]
(Hey Kumioko, just an FYI) Thanks for your interest in helping bring DC public art to Misplaced Pages! We have updated our Task Force page for DC, so please take a look and get started. We look forward to seeing your contributions and please let me know if I can help you with anything. Missvain (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Your welcome and glad to help. I like the look of the new page...it seems somewhat familiar..lol. A couple questions though. A couple of the articles for creation are a little ambiguous and I was hoping for some clarification. For the article of Lt Gen George Washington there is already and article for him but I assume you are talking about a monument or sculpture somewhere. Same with Winfield Scott. These might need to be clarified to say something like Lt. Gen. George Washington (sculpture).
Depending on the documentation and sources you can scrounge up it might be better to start with some by adding them to an existing article. That will help get the word out about that piece of art and at the same time expand on an existing article. A good example of this would be to add more information about the Dupont Fountain (and create a redirect for Dupont Fountain to the appropriate section) to the article for Dupont Circle (which gets a fair amount of Trafic) rather than build a stub page for a piece of art that is likely to draw less attention than the article its associated too (no offense intended here. As the information and imagery on that piece of art is expanded we can always break them out into separate larger articles later and this will help to draw traffic to the art as well. --Kumioko (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Thanks! The articles that I requested to be started are generally following proper naming conventions (from what I know, but I can be wrong) but they don't have to stay that way. Upon visiting the DC List you can find sources for all of those sculptures and more. We ask that people use the SIRIS database, and upon searching for those titles you will find the sculpture that matches.
I already do add many sculptures to existing articles. If you feel we should change the suggested creation pages to not be red links, or whatever, right on. Most of this stuff should seem pretty obvious and common sense for the beginner (or How-To pages are so freaking easy to understand, since we are often dealing with non-Wikipedians), but, it all seems easy when it's your project. :) User:RichardMcCoy actually built the Project page, FYI! I'm sick..so sorry if I'm grumpy :-/ Missvain (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
On the issue of naming is the Lieutenant General George Washington article being requested a sculpture or something else? The reason I ask is because of his obvious common figure status if you just name it Lieutenant General George Washington people are likely to be somewhat confused.
Sorry to hear your sick. You must have got the Wikiplague with Aude this weekend I guess. I hope you all didn't get it from me but since I am not sick I don't think so. Tell one of your friends to bring you some chicken soup or something. Theres something in that stuff that makes people feel better. Mint tea helps too. --Kumioko (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I would rather eat my cookie <---- and see what everyone else says. It might also be more productive if you signed your posts. Seems like maybe something thats been mentioned before. I have made mistakes and said things that I knew were innappropriate. I'm willing to man-up and concede that I have let my frustrations get the better of me and that its possible that some of your actions are not as negative as I have made them out to be. That is precisely the reason I opened this ANI. To get outside perspecitve on the ongoing disagreements. But I am also willing to make a bet that I am not the only one that found some of your comments to be innappropriate and not professional. We'll see. Let stop commenting back and forth and see what others think. --Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Pseudo-barnstar
Personal User Award: the Oak Leaf and Acorn Hex Sign
The stylized leaves of the white oak in their fall colors on this Pennsylvania Dutch hex sign are a symbol of strength; acorns denote youth and great prospects. This award is given as a courtesy for edits that strengthen and reinvigorate a Wikipage, even if they may not qualify for a particular Barnstar. While I may not have agreed with some of your AWB habits, or tagging WP:USRD articles under the US banner, I do know that all you were trying to do was help out the project. You are right, most state projects suck, and a lot of projects are inactive, but there are ones, such as USRD who are highly active that just seemed a bit... put off by your aggressiveness. Misplaced Pages needs users like you still, and I hope you do not leave for good. Thank you. Admrboltz (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the U.S. portal! I keep seeing updates to the project page, but haven't read much. My takeaway is you're moving on, at least for now. I'm doing a little more editing on the contents portal pages and might have some time for the U.S. portal here and there. Anything in particular you would want me to work on? Regards, RichardF (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Most of it is setup it just needs new content from time to time to keep things fresh. The On this day section still has a lot of days that are missing content so that could use some improvement. Thats all I can think of. Good luck. --Kumioko (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep I didn't get the chance to do a whole lot before I got sucked into an endless debate about the scope of WPUS. If I may ask what made you stop before? Also, I contacted several WikiProjects about providing content and one of them, US roads, has already got a couple and they seem interested in providing content. If you take a look at their talk page you should see them. Good luck to you as well. --Kumioko (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Removal of speedy tag
Are you aware it is against Misplaced Pages policy to remove a speedy deletion tag from a category that you yourself created, as you did here? Please instead place the hold on template along with reasons of why you think the speedy deletion criteria doesn't apply if you don't wish for the category to be deleted. I will be reverting your change because you have not provided a reason for why the C1 criteria doesn't apply. Thanks, 69.59.200.77 (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to add a speedy delete tag because I am still constructing the template that feeds that category. I ran into a snag and had to ask another editor for assistance and it should be fixed soon. --Kumioko (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
State infoboxes
Thank you for the warning about state infoboxes. I fixed the ones I inserted, and found that Maine is where I started, so I fixed that, too. The results looked so good, I got carried away. I do wonder what "| has-goals =" and
"| assessment =" mean, as I have not found them in use. I am also puzzled that Maine does not seem to be a project with a category for assessment tables. Maybe the tools people will tell me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Im sorry I don't know what the goals is either other than as a yes or no to say the project has them and maybe for the assessments = would mean they have the quality assessment categories and functionality on their banners. Thats just a guess though. As far as the Maine question some of the state projects and several of the other US related projects do not have assessment carteories but I thought maine did. If you look at the Embassy page @ Misplaced Pages:WikiProject United States all the US related projects are listed (that doesn't mean that they fall under WPUS just a list of whats out there), their status and a link to the Assessment tables. Not sure if that will help but maybe it will. --Kumioko (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of an abundance of caution, I did not add an infobox to Wikiproject Kansas, but instead Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Kansas provides the infobox on their talk page for their consideration. They have a very "busy" project page, and I am unsure how an infobox could fit in. Nebraska is a different story. See .--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah there are a few active ones out there. WPUS is another one thats pretty busy but I was trying to see a way to work it in. New York, Wisonsin and Oregon are pretty active as well so you might want to drop it on their talk pages first as well if you haven't implemented them yet. --Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You bet I want to appeal it. Absolutely. It was not a personal attack or harraassment. After the display that Racepacket put on the last three months anyone could reasonable question if he is appropriate as a mentor. Repeated violation of Misplaced Pages policies including Forum Shopping, votestacking and campaigning, repeated trolling on the Talk page of Wikiproject United States, unrelenting hostility towards myself the project and other users. Misrepresenting and misquoting statements and facts when contacting other users. repeated Assumutions of Bad Faith. Shall I go on. The fact that I left a message suggesting that the users activity be reviewed is not harassment. I do not feel that they are fit to perform the function of a mentor to new users. Period. Also to be quite honest I find your actions objectionable. First you innapropriately revert comments I made to some talk pages in response to some bad advertising on the part of Racepacket, then you block me because I suggested that the mentoring group review whether racepacket shoudl be a mentor? Were else shoudl I take a question like that? If I or any editor feel that an editor is not fit to be a mentor then we should say something without beign worried about being blocked. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Recommend a deep breath and perhaps unplugging the computer for a bit. Sarek is a calm admin, which is why I was surprised earlier. I understand your overarching point (concentrating activity in a US wikiproj is a good thing) and I believe I feel your pain ("How dare you try to improve the wiki by concentrating effort efficiently?!?"). But you really do keep putting the lollypop squarely on the metatarsals. Deep breath, short pause, and I think things will get better. Best. Haus04:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Help
Hello there Kumioko - although we disagree with Find a Graves uses here on Wiki - I find myself trying to defend there article from being defaced with mention of its (what i call spam) links here on Wiki. They also seem to want to mention its reliability in the article to... So would like your input at Talk:Find a Grave#Copyright? and Talk:Find a Grave#Finding sources.Moxy (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.
Welcome to WikiProject Wikify's first newsletter! This newsletter will be published every two months, right before the start of the upcoming drive. February's Drive is projected to be a huge success, with announcements posted at The Signpost and Community Portal. Participants will be rewarded with barnstars. Sign up if you have not already!Project Coordinator elections are still open until February 1, 2011.
Holy cow thats a huge message. Maybe somone should trim that down a bit? Maybe a smaller picture..lol. It definately gets attention though. --Kumioko (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Interstate Highways and WPUS
Two questions: 1) Why didn't you observe WP:BRD? You were bold, I reverted, you should have discussed. Instead you reverted. Now I'm discussing this, but in the future, it's not polite un-revert other's changes to your bold edits. 2) Why are you singling out two highways of the entire network as "nationally important"? Honestly, the whole network is, which is why I tagged Talk:Interstate Highway System and Talk:United States Numbered Highways for WPUS, as they are both national networks of highways. I'm considering Talk:National Highway System (United States) for additional tagging. It seems to me that you picked two Interstates, one for each coast, without any consideration for their actual importance vis-à-vis other components of the system. The NHS, by definition from the FHWA, is: "important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility". That's my opinion on what should be tagged, not individual components, which will reopen the contentious discussions you participated in at WT:USRD. Imzadi1979→06:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I didn't untag Talk:U.S. Route 66 as the cultural aspects weigh in favor of an exception to the general thought that the systems themselves are the nationally important item, not the individual components. Imzadi1979→06:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
First Quite frankly I don't agree with the whole national scope claim to begin with. There also was no reason for you to take the tag off in the first place, so I reverted. Your project doesn't own the article and any project is free to tag them so for you to remove the tag quite frankly is innappropriate without at least discussion it. If you disagreed you could also have discussed it rather than removing it. Although I don't agree I'm not on a mass tagging campaign; I chose those (1-5, I-95 and Route 66) specifically because of their "National" importance. I also agree that the 2 other articles you selected are of National importance and I appreciate you tagging them for us. I also agree that third one would be appropriate as well even under a national scope. Although IMO I shouldn't have to explain why I chose to tag those. I will reply to each.
Route 66, primarily for reasons you suggest.
I-5 and I-95 are major arteries that run the full length of each coast respectively and cross multiple states. They each run through multiple major cities, have multiple issues relating to them of national importance. Are used for Interstate commerce, travel, work, vacation, are mentioned in multiple cultural references (sings, books, literature and the like), etc.
With that said, I'm not trying to fight this battle with you and I though it would have been obvious when I only tagged 3 articles that I wasn't trying too and that I was being very selective in what I was tagging so as not to interrupt the delicate balance of which projects have the right to put these articles under our scope. Unfortunately I can see that you did not see it and probably will continue to fight the issue of ownership over these articles. You need to learn how to work "with" others and be a little less combative when it comes to other projects tagging articles in the scope of US roads. --Kumioko (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to strike the right balance here. That's why I'm suggesting tagging the systems only. I find it curious that you only tagged two Interstates, and only the two that the the coasts, and not any of the east–west Interstates. To me though, tagging any additional articles while the discussion at WPUS is still ongoing is very contentious. This discussion over tagging USRD articles under WPUS has been had and rejected by parts of the community already. Two people can work together and still disagree. However, you seem to be the type that will force his opinion through, and use the power of AWB's speed to make tagging a fait accompli, which is bad around here. Now, I've extended an olive branch by tagging three articles (IHS, USNHS, NHS) and leaving one tagged (US 66). Please accept that in the good faith in which it was offered. People disagree with your actions and choice, and you'll need the support of the community to continue. Imzadi1979→19:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
First the discussions at WPUS are pretty much over as far as scope. We did a major rewrite and clarified some things but the group agreed with the scope but we have all agreed that the primary area of concentration would be National level articles particularly those of Top and high priority. Not that we wouldn't tag them or consider other articles in the scope of the project. Second, if I was the type to force my opinion I would have tagged all of the US roads articles rather than just a couple that I felt were uncontentious and pertained to a national standpoint. The reason I didn't tag any of the coast to coast ones was because quite frankly there is any number of ways to get from east to west besides them. The coastal routes offer little deviation. You might be able to skirt them for a while but eventually you'll have to use them at least for a short while. Although I appreciate the fact that you tagged those other articles there is, quite frankly, no need for you to make allowances because we have just as much right as your project to tag the articles. I am personally happy with the 10 or so articles mentioned above and don't really intend to push it any farther. There is no need for your aggressive tone, personal attacks, threats or displays of ownership of the Roads articles. --Kumioko (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
A point of clarification. What have I done that is a personal attack? Where have I made any threats? How do I own any articles at issue? Am I the only one that has disagreed with your tagging of two (2!) articles? I'm attempting to compromise here. The previous status quo, to which you agreed, was "no tagging of USRD articles by WPUS". Now you (as in you personally) tag three articles, seemingly at random. (You have a rationale, but it wasn't explained anywhere until questioned here so others were left with their initial impressions based on a lack of communication about that rationale.) You were reverted. Instead of discussing it at an appropriate forum, you reinstated your opinion, against the tenets of WP:BRD. I had to start the discussion, and you've been reverted by a third editor. In the course of that discussion, you're now making bad-faith accusations towards me without explanation.
I suggest that others might view another reversion by yourself on this issue as edit-warring. I would view it as a bad faith attempt to own the issue while it's being discussed. That is not an attack nor a threat, that is only a personally held opinion being being honestly offered in the spirit of open communication that such action should not be done until this discussion is resolved. I will also offer that there is currently no consensus to reinstate the tags, and until such time as there is, they should remain off the articles in question.
Now, I'm tired of this. You know the opinions of the interested editors. I do not choose to speak for all of them, as I am only one voice that keeps trying to discuss the situation with you. The others will discuss and offer their opinions on a different talk page if asked, but previous discussions have been clear: USRD is considered a part of WPUS, and its articles will be tagged for the United States in the WP1.0 release, so the additional, redundant banner tags are not necessary. Your actions have been controversial. I mean that in the sense that there is controversy and disagreement over them. Please reconsider your position. My opinion remains the same: there are many, many highways that are "nationally important". Most of them are gathered together into one system: The National Highway System which includes all of the Interstates, many US Highways, many State Highways and even some County Roads that may or may not ever get articles. Rather than sorting through every article under USRD to determine which roads are or aren't listed on the NHS, especially when not all of the articles have NHS status added and some link the the NHS article in a statement they aren't listed on the NHS, and then trying to determine which roads have enough NHS-listed length to be considered "important", I'm suggesting that WPUS tag the system articles and US 66. The systems are what is nationally important, as the whole system in its totality is what drives the importance, not one component. Apparently, I'm not the only one that agrees with this philosophy because a third editor has reverted your edits.
Now, as for the importance being limited to coast routes, I dispute that as well. Why? Well, I don't think that most of the commercial traffic is running up and down the coasts. It's probably running inland to take goods to and from the ports. Our industrial centers are not right on the coasts. Our population isn't concentrated solely along the coasts. Coastal traffic isn't limited to I-5 or I-95; there's US 101 and US 1 and many other roads along the coasts. Imzadi1979→21:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
First it is absolutely ridiculous that you would make such a monumental issue out of tagging 3 articles. It is absolutely disappointing. It really is. I tagged 3 articles, not 30 or 300 and in my edit summery even stated that I was doing so with the understanding that the tagging of the should be understood. It doesn't surprise me at all that they were reverted since it is common knowledge to many editors not part of US roads that the US roads project displays ownership over the articles in their scope beyond what is seen as appropriate. When you repeatedly take comments I have made out of context and continually accuse me of inapropriate activity (over 3 articles no less) that is a personal attack. You were careful in your first response not to make any direct threats true but reading the last 2 sentences sure sounds like an indirect threat and certainly gives the keep it up and see what happens inferrance. Knowone is trying to take over US roads or trying to knock you out of the project but you are required to allow others to edit the US roads articles without threats of reversion, blocking or anything else. You nor the project own them. I shouldn't feel like I have to repeat that but I do.
I don't see how anyone could see my reversion of bad faith reversion on the part of you and your projects ownership issues of the articles in your scope to be bad faith edits. There is consensus and the new mission statement has been adopted. Of those that voiced their opinions it was roughly 7 to 1. Now if you want to go and submit a suggestion that in order for a project to change their scope that all the other projects have to agree then go for it but personally I think this would be pointless, a waste of time and amount to requirements creep.
I also tire of this constant petty bickering over what amounts to symantics. ANY PROJECT CAN TAG ARTICLES IN THEIR SCOPE. I have abided by the accord that we wouldn't tag US roads articles but having 10 in common isn't a problem. It is not up to YOU to decide what we or I will tag.
AS for US roads being part if WikiProject United States...it is not...nor should it be. They are separate independant projects with different scopes and although they may from time to time overlap in certain areas Missions and areas of Focus as well.
As for the the Coastal comment. Over 75% of the US population lives within 300 miles of a coastline, the majority of goods and services going from the coastline to inland is by train and although Heavy trucks carry a large chuck they are not the dominant share. Aside from this if you want me to start a discussion on the WPUS talk page of which US roads articles we should tag due to being in the national scope and want to have a good debate then ok but my guess is the general consensus is going to be that its more than the 10 we currently have (not counting this in DC). --Kumioko (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Also it was just pointed out Who can tag articles if you really want to press the issue over three articles...which I have no interest in doing by the way. I am willing to live with what we have between us and don't intend to start tagging more from US roads (there are plenty more articles to tag that aren't represented as well as the articles under US roads) but I can't speak for others who may not agree so I would recommend not opening that can of worms. --Kumioko (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not happy to have a constant discussion with you over 2 articles when you won't listen to the core point, which is, that consensus has rejected any further cross-tagging of articles. Now, I'm trying to "play nice". I'm the one spear-heading the effort to select 4 articles for the US portal. (One of my next planned Featured Article nominates is being moved up in the schedule so that Brockway Mountain Drive can be a FA added to that portal.) I've suggested that the national system articles are fully appropriate for a national scope project rather than open the can of worms of "which of the 10,000 other articles might be 'nationally important' enough" to also tag. (That debate could seriously run a year in time to determine what criteria and then research all of the various parameters to include or exclude specific articles.) I think we both need to examine the commercial shipping aspect, as I believe most of the cargo in this country is shipped by truck. (Walmart and other stores don't make deliveries to stores by train. UPS uses planes to transfer packages between hubs and then trucks from the hubs to delivery locations. That isn't to say that trains don't ship anything, but I think you vastly underestimate how much is shipped on the highways.) Now, I've tried, and I'm done with this conversation. We're probably not going to agree, but I hope that you can see my point. I see yours, but don't agree. As for USRD and WPUS overlapping: USRD is a subject-matter child project of WPUS. Imzadi1979→00:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not trying too argue this and believe me I wholeheartedly appreciate you spearheading articles to be featuring on the US portal for your project but please don't think of it as a favor to me but to the US portal, the US roads project and to the article itself. All three will benefit from a collaboration. Again please check out Who can tag articles so the arguments of who can tell whom what articles can be tagged is mute.
I just don't have the energy or time to enter the discussion on what should be in the United States project, or not. Too complex. Too much for me to consider.
Arthur Ross (philanthropist) is the kind of article that I think should not be tagged with the United States project template. I did nothing with the talk page. I cite it as an example for you to comment on, and perhaps use as an example in the discussion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure I did that partly because he is a US resident and does not have another US related project associate with him. It was also partly because he is a fairly well known philanthropist in New York. Aside from that, there is no requirement for you to work on this article or any other. Work on the articles you want to work on or help out with the project if you want. We are all volunteers and knowone is asking you to do more than you want to do. But I feel strongly that if an article doesn't have another US related banner then it could and should fall somewhere to ensure that it is maintained by someone. Even if that maintenance is limited to bot activity related to the project because the article is low in the importance scale. We only have 26000 articles on the projects list at the moment (not counting templates, categories, files and the like) its really not that big. And even then that's only after 4 months of me tagging them. It will be a long long time before it ever riches the behemoth that people seem to make it into if it ever does happen. --Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to understand the policy. In this instance, I added a New York City template. I am not complaining about your editing. Perhaps what you have said above is sufficient for me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree adding the New york template was also needed. Although I don't normally work on individual states some like New York are very active and that makes sense. I have considered starting to add the banners for some state and US topic related articles but have had mixed results with doing that (even though a think is in the state or topic some projects decide to further restrict their scope) so many articles aren't added to the projects because they are too low on the importance scale and the projects choose instead to limit their activities to only the most important articles. --Kumioko (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Smithsonian
Yep, I'm working on it right now. FYI-I changed the /Sandbox to lower case /sandbox, so that it links from the main template pg (at the bottom). --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
One problem is the mixing of article categories and WikiProject categories. The 1st is for articles, the 2nd is for article talk pages. I'm going to separate the talk pages to be under the collaboration category only, because the project articles shouldn't be in the mainspace categories. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok Im not quite sure what you mean but hopefully it will make sense once I see it. I thought I did it the same way that the template fro WPUS was done but I guess not. Sorry for all the extra work.--Kumioko (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Your edits here are mangled. You have modified another user's comments, and failed to correctly place the WikiProject Abortion project template. I am going to revert your changes, but feel free to try again once the bug is fixed. Plastikspork―Œ08:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Contents pages navigation proposal
A proposal to add topical links to all of the contents pages has been made. As part of that proposal, the navigation bar at the top of these contents pages would look like this.
Hello, Kumioko. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
(According to history this was left by Racepacket who yet again failed to sign) I have commented at the Alert link provided above. --Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Project tagging
Hi, while there is no specific order for placing project tags, it is preferable to keep WP Biography at the top when the subject is a living person. When you added a WPUS tag here, you placed it above the WPBio banner, and moved the BLP notice to a position below the top. Makes AWB edits more difficult, but that notice really is important to keep as the first thing someone sees on the talk page. Jim Miller22:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks that is a bit strange especially because I have logic that will move the BLP living to the top of the banners. I think its because I was using the prepend function. I will go back and make sure that WPBiography is top for all the ones I did. Please let me know if you see anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, feel free to use whatever you need to setup your newsletter. Most of the larger active projects have newsletters so consider visiting the project pages, as they should have links to their most recent newsletter. It took me a few minutes of searching, but we used to have a directory of all newsletters. It has since been redirected, but you can see a list of them as it was back in 2009 here. That listing should be helpful in showing a variety of formats and may indicate what projects are still producing newsletters. If you need help with anything let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun!
Get going!
The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun. Please get started, as the drive aims to wikify over 2,000 articles this month. We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please remind your friends to join up as well. In case you didn't know, wikification is fairly simple: just add wiki markup, links, and similar formatting. Thanks for joining; we're looking forward to an exciting time this month!
Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.
We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.
We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
Kumioko, I just wanted to thank you for your involvement with the discussion of qualifications/disqualifications for Online Ambassadors. Clearly, there were more issues with Racepacket than what I was able to pick up from browsing the dispute between you two. (It's never easy to sort out who's really right or wrong in disputes like that, without spending a whole lot of time reviewing the details. Which is why I still think that, outside of the ambassador role, disputes involving ambassadors should generally be left the normal dispute resolution / policy enforcement structure... I definitely, definitely, definitely don't want the ambassador program to try to set up its own parallel arbitration committee or something like that.) But it's important for people to bring up problems with ambassadors, which hopefully can most of the time be resolved in a happier fashion than this case. So again, thanks.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition
Starting with the February 2011 issueWikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:
and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.
You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page.
Hey, a suggestion: if you are going to write from the 1st person, you should include your sig (or at least your name) in the newsletter (that's assuming that you were the editor who wrote it). bahamut0013deeds19:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Happy February to you, and I hope that your experience with WikiProject United States has been a good one since joining and that since the project relaunch in October 2010 you have helped it to grow and thrive. This is the first of what will hopefully be a monthly newsletter about articles and events relating to United States topics. Although this newsletter was built and is primarily maintained by WikiProject United States, many of the items that will be profiled here pertain not only to this project but to some or all of the 200+ WikiProjects relating to United States topics. This will include information about new changes to Wiki policy, features and events; featured content for the month such as Portal:United States, the US Wikipedians Noticeboard, the US Wikipedians collaboration of the Month and other topics. For this reason I encourage anyone interested in United States topics to sign up to receive it and participate in its developement regardless of your affiliation to WikiProject United States.
Scope and Mission of WikiProject United States
Welcome to WikiProject United States on the English Misplaced Pages! We are a project dedicated to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of topics related to the United States, with an emphasis on subjects with regional and national significance. This project was formed to coordinate the development of United States related articles and help maintain the United States Portal. Some project goals are to help list and categorize United States related articles, develop quality standards for articles and build templates that help users browse the articles that fall under this project. This project also provides a place for Wikipedians to share information and resources regarding improvements to United States related articles. Here, editors can ask for help with certain articles and bring otherwise overlooked articles and problems, to the attention of other editors. For more information of the role of WikiProjects, check out WikiProject guidelines.
With a redesigned project, mission and scope; tools to help manage the project and the content it supports; a strong group of active editors covering a wide array of US topics whats next? To create a way for those users to Collaborate and work together to improve content and to have a place to make that work visible to others. With that in mind several editors worked to redesign and relaunch three tools: Portal:United States, the US Wikipedians Noticeboard and the US Wikipedians collaboration of the Month. I recommend adding all three to your watchlist. Along with this new monthly newsletter these three tools will allow editors to work together, to stay informed about changes and information relating to US topics and to present articles and content to our readers.
The United Sates Portal will be instrumental in presenting High class (Featured and A-class) content, links to the US-related projects and portals and other information relating to US topics in an organized graphical format. Help is needed on keeping the portal updated and fresh with new content and updating the On this day and Did you know sections as new topics are made available. Thanks goes to RichardF for rebuilding and updating the layout and for recently stepping forward and doing so much work in the last month to get this moving back to featured portal status.
The US Wikipedians Noticeboard was restarted as a way for information to be passed and discussed. This Noticeboard will be a good way for the projects and editors to discuss issues between projects in a central and neutral location.
This newsletter was created to pass important information to the Projects and editors who want it and to keep them updated on the status of the project, the portal, the noticeboard and the collaboration.
The Collaboration of the Month was restarted as a way to build up articles and allow editors to help decide which one will get special attention for that month. This has been very successful with the first new collaboration article being chosen. Special thanks to Casliber for volunteering to rebuild this and get this going as well as their ongoing support. The Collaboration of the Month article for February is:
There are several active discussions occurring on the project's talk page that will have a long term effect on the project and will in some form affect its members. If you haven't done so already, I would like to encourage you to add your voice to the discussions.
A proposal was made to rewrite the Mission statement of WikiProject United States and better define its scope and focus. Members of the project along with editors from outside the project discussed the new mission and scope and when a consensus was reached, they were implemented.
There is a proposal to draft a communications plan and establish when and how messages are sent out as well as clarifying who should receive them.
There is a proposal to clarify the criteria for determining the importance of articles as they relate to the United States and its history including specific language for biographical articles.
Things you can help with
We are looking for additional help in several areas including tasks relating to the project such as:
Helping to maintain this newsletter
Designing a new banner for WikiProject United States to be displayed on the Project page and newsletter
We need help with cleanup issues such as eliminating Unreferenced BLPs and fixing maintenance tags. If interested, details can be seen by clicking on the To do tab of the Project page.
Got a suggestion? A correction? Something you'd like to see included in a future issue? Drop a note at the Tip Line with your ideas!
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
I've noticed that you've added the WikiProject United States tag to a number of photographs of Mexican churches and such, for example File talk:Oquitoa.jpg and File talk:Oposura.jpg. I've taken it off the ones I've noticed. No biggie, but potentially confusing. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Came across something that may be of interest to you. See here..what seems to be happening is this editor is delinking The word USA and others words for ALL the USA templates. Not sure if this is normal...pls take a look tell me what you think.Moxy (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for updating the WQA
Many people underestimate or even forget about the bit in the instructions: If the circumstances change since your original posting then please update your alert. But it's there for a reason; although it may take a minute to leave the update, it can save a lot of minutes in the future if unfortunately (for one reason or another) people have to go through it again, and that's why your edit is appreciated. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Kumioko. I posted on your talk page back in November about an issue with your updating of article talk pages inadvertently removing template brackets, and you asked me to let you know if I noted any others. It appears to have occured again with this edit. -Dewelar (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you I added some logic that will close a wikiproject banner if its followed by {{ or ==. Please let me know if you find anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Kumioko. You have new messages at Visik's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I was making a disambiguation list for James McLeod to serve as the place to point a redirect for James C. McLeod, a South Carolina politician of the 1940s and came across the unrelated entry in your Sandbox6 for James McLeod, a Civil War MoH winner. However, while he is in the MoH list on Misplaced Pages, he isn't in your articles to create list despite the fact he has no article. Just wanted to let you know in case either he's been added as hoax, or more likely because you didn't include him in your articles to create list because the article James McLeod had been a redirect for James Macleod. Carolina wren (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have been working on getting WikiProject US and some related things like the portal, collaboration and Newsletter going again (several pothers users have been instrumental in that endeavor as well so I don't want to take credit for what they did) and that has taken a lot of my time but I am hoping to get back to working on the recipients pages soon. I'm glad to see you are working on that one. --Kumioko (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Please rememeber that edits like that only bypass redirects and change white space are forbidden by the AWB rules. You need to skip these edits when you review them in AWB. Persistent violation of AWB rules will lead to your AWB access being removed. If you are doing things that you know are potentially controversial, like "cleaning up" talk page templates, you need to ensure that you do it by the book. — Carl (CBM · talk)
Similarly, the edit summary of seems to be misleading: you did not update the assessment to "A" for any project. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say they are fobidden as much as discouraged. At least in the case of the Wikibanner standardization. Consideringn I do over 10, 000 edits a month I would hardly call 5 to 10 a persistent trend as that constitutes something like .009% accuracy which I dare say is better than most editors. With that said I remember that second one and kicked myself once I did it but I couldn't go back and change the summery once I hit save. Maybe a new change to AWB would be to allow us to edit a summery once its been made. The other is an anomaly. I am usually very careful not to do edits like that without a more significant one. Let me know if you find anymore though. --Kumioko (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Even if they were only "discouraged", AWB rule #3 says not to do any controversial, which certainly includes not doing things that are discouraged. But rule #4 explicitly includes bypassing redirects. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
As I stated before oh mysterious IP user these were just anomolies and represent the exception and not the rule. Everyone makes mistakes occassionally and I certainly am no exception. I would hope that the rules of use within WP haven't become so stringent that they do not allow for occassional failure! --Kumioko (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure these were errors, too: . Those three in a row. Removing unused parameters is also a trivial change, if it doesn't actually change anything in the rendered article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologize in advance but this is going to sound kinda bad in text. First I appreciate that you seem to feel strongly that standardization and the use of bots for this is a bad thing but I am not going to stop because 1 or 2 editors out of thousands think its not needed. Especially when those are senior editors that have a complete understanding of the rules and policies and myriads of templates and naming conventions in use in WP. I am also less concerned with the ones that aren't developing the code for the tools that hundreds of users use or that do nothing but debate everything they see so that Misplaced Pages never changes. Its supposed to change. Most change is good. I am getting tired of editors who do nothing but wander from discussion to discussion trolling and trying to cause a weeks long debate about anything that others are doing. You seem to be contributing some article content so this statement doesn't apply directly to you but these are relatively minor and important changes that will help in the long run. There is no reason to argue about these and force me or others to do them manually when we have tools to do it for us. As strongly as you feel against them I feel for them and even if you took AWB away all it would make me do is to manually edit every one or create a java script. It would slow me down a bit, thats it. Would you prefer that I make all these changes manually? Going into each article talk page and manually editing each one. I think you are missing the point of using bots, scripts or advanced editing tools. If more editors would actually write and develop articles rather than engage those who are trying to do so in endless debates about things that are truly pointless to debate we would have 5 million+ articles by now. So if there is some good reason that I shouldn't be doing this (like I am breaking something or breaking a better policy than the simantics of wether this is or is not a minor edit then let me know. But if the only reason you don't want me to make these changes is because you think its not necessary or because you feel offended in some way that I changed WP to WikiProject on some banner that you added then I am sorry, there is no offense intended but I am not going to stop making these changes because I hurt someones feelings. Again I apologize for having a bit of attitude but I have recently been appalled at the shocking rise of editors who do nothing but debate and discuss every change or revert an edit to an article they act as the guardian over.
Going back to your comments those last three are working per design. I do not agree that removing empty or deprecated parameters is a trivial change. Where does it say that a deprecated or empty parameter should not be deleted? Where does it show that when I could tell you about 20 things very quickly done by bot off the top of my head that don't change the rendering of an article so I don't believe that statement is true aside from being perhaps personal preference. Persondata doesn't change the rendering of an article either but we have logic for that! Also in the case of the middle one I added BLPO to the Wikiprojectbannershell. Yesterday I added logic to get rid of the leftover BLP others template so I will fix that in the next day or 2. --Kumioko (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
To be concrete: if you make any additional trivial talk page edits of the sort you have made today, I will remove your AWB access temporarily. . The AWB rules do not permit making trivial changes like these. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
To be clear back neither of those violate the rules and you still have yet to show me evidence that they do. So for you to remove my AWB access for removing the deprecated nested parameter and eliminating the uneeded and unused banner parameters when the templates themselves state specifically that if they are not used they should not be there would be an abuse of your admin powers and I would report it as such. If you do not agree with these edits then I suggest you do what you are supposed to do and bring them up for discussion on the village pump or other venue rather than bully me with unwarranted threats. --Kumioko (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I will report it to ANI myself if I removed your access. If you want to remove all unused "nested" parameters from talk pages, try to get bot approval for it. I expect the response would be that there's no reason for a bot to edit all those pages for that reason. Similarly, there's no reason to do it with AWB. You need to follow the AWB rules, which include not making minor edits and not making edits which you know are disputed. You need to get consensus first before doing bot-like editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
First I don't care about all the articles I am only concentrating on the ones under WikiProeject US adn I am following the rules. You have repeatedly avoided answering my question about where it says I should not remove deprecated parameters or remove parameters that the projects themselves state explicitly not to add if they are not being used is minor. You haven't answered because you know its not there. As for being disputed. 1 editor does not make it disputed. If you feel strongly that these shouldn't be made, rather than threats why don't you start a discussion and if consensus says it is a trivial edit (which I doubt) then I will stop and we can update the AWB rules to state that they should be done. Now Please quite being a watchlist stalker and quite baragging me with disussions so I can contrinute to the ecyclopedia. --Kumioko (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you please both calm down? I want to write my point of view but I ma busy in real life at the moment. I'll try to do it within the next hour. Meanwhile, both calm down. You are great editors and great contributors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's my opinion. I am somewhere in the middle. Trivial edits should be avoided while using AWB. We downed trivial edits to those which don't change the rendering. Carl has right on this. It's also right that most of the things done right now can be done while doing other stuff. More Slowly but still. There is something interesting though in Kumioko's edits. Mass removal of empty parameters helps rendering time. Templates are rendered much faster. I am trying to find someone to perform a database scan to get an idea if the work it has to be done. If the edits are few, I guess Kumioko doesn't need a bot approval. Otherwise, we 'll have to think of a solution. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thats great. I got the regex figured out if you need it. I can't get it to work in C for some reason but it works in the DAvanced F&R. --Kumioko (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. If I need it, I'll tell you. Do you use AdvF&R before or after genfixes? We made some changes and disactivated AdvF&R after genfixes. Temporarily at least. I expect Reedy to upload new snapshot till tomorrow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The normal find and replace is set for after but I don't know if I can set the advanced to be after. Its working for me though although if it stops working it will just make me finish converting the last 200 or so filters into C. --Kumioko (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at 
