User talk:Br'er Rabbit/Archive

Good to see you back[edit]

I'm glad you've decided to edit directly again. I've restored your userrights. I hope you will keep to productive editing and this account until ArbCom can spare time from its very important stuff or whatever it is they do, to lift any remaining, vestigial restrictions.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih ;) Don't ec/me I'm fussing with Brudage. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't much care for people fussing with him.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't know Merridew ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No great need to fuss with the stuff from Munich on that I didn't write. This is complete makeover, none of that is staying.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just fix anything in sight ;) I'll leave it to you for a bit. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from me as well. :) — Ched : ? 03:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! N419 BH 04:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precious! "... very early in the morning ...", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selamat kembali! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih, folks ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willkommen zurück. PumpkinSky talk 10:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tell ya, it's those orange banners and /precious/. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And another welcome from me too. You've clearly been doing a lot of great editing work for the encyclopedia, and it's nice to have you back in the open. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It will be nice to be able to speak plainly and with institutional knowledge. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC) (since 31 October 2004;)[reply]

Good to see you again, Wikipedia was starting to suck more without you around. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do need to work on the suck-factor. I see what you've been up to and help as needed ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back above board. Will try very, very hard not to call you Jack anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll answer to "Jack", it's part of the "designated target" paradigm. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back! Buggie111 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fixing some battleships, today. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know each other, but having seen glimpses of conversations for a while, I get the odd sensation of recognizing a house one's driven by forever. Good to have you back, regardless. Cheers! Dru of Id (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! :) Glad you're back. Acalamari 08:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(not really been gone;) Terima kasih, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome indeed - My76Strat (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see WT:AC. Teh House of FA is in whine-mode.

Help me, Sandy
Help, help me, Sandy
Help me, Sandy, yeah
Get him out of my face

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Video on YouTube ;)

A nice cuppa[edit]

Just what you need (well, given that they don't have pink gin) Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To celebrate the prodigal, they do now :D --RexxS (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off for a drink in a bit, actually. Look out for the place ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dianna has brought you some raspberries! Have fun editing teh wiki :7 -- Dianna (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am, I am (especially after an evening out drinking at 'junction';) and I /like/ raspberries. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch treat! Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih. I'll save'em for breakfast ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orange juice and a long walk, plus about a quart of water to get things going, would be smarter.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need to get more OJ. I just /had/ a long walk; about 8km of bar-crawl. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Breathing out a light spray of stroopwafel crumbs as she speaks :] Darwinbish has stolen your stroopwafels! The stroopwafels made her happy and she'd like to give you a great big hug for leaving them where she could reach them. Spread the WikiLove by giving her some more baked goods, unless you want her boys to pay you a visit! darwinbish ^BITE 12:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Done. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need An Opinion[edit]

Was updating some of the broken references on the Stephens City, Virginia article and one is giving me grief. It is appears the website is having an "internal service error" with the URL for the article itself, so I can't pull of the link for the reference, but it is still on the newspaper's website archives (scroll down and look for "Shull sworn in as mayor of town"). Would the archive link (showing the page I have linked to currently) be enough for a reference or would I have to find an actual article. (Note: User:Wehwalt sent me your way) Welcome Back...Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That page is not in the wayback machine. If the site doesn't perk up in a few days, you could just cut the link and cite the paper as Wehwalt's saying; or re-source the statement. I'd not bet on the site adding the old content per a request. Sorry. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think so either. I will go the Wehwalt route. Thanks Br'er, glad to have you back on Wiki. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, does this look alright? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, except that you seem to have kept the wrong date. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, the date on the archive now says "June 30" instead of "June 29", so for the sake of clarity, I went with the online date. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbits in the arts[edit]

Rabbits in the arts should be work for you (unless "hares" is better, debated) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref "improvements"[edit]

Why did you bother converting the ISBNs for the books in the USS Texas article over to the 978 prefix? That prefix has only been used in the last five years or so and none of the books cited therein used it as published. The ISBNs were usable as given so why spent time on something that makes no difference to a reader?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help:ISBN links#Types

Please use the 13-digit one if available

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, although I always viewed that as applying to newly-published books, not dictating any sort of retrospective conversion. Just wondering why you were spending your time on something that I saw pointless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a cool tool at http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp that gets the job done in only a few minutes. -- Dianna (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Welcome back - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Malleus Fatuorum with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -down load ׀ talk 21:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -down load ׀ talk 21:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

go away; look, again. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I like huggle, but it sometimes is hard to get context when looking through the huggle window. And the faster you edit the more mistakes you make. As I think was the case here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies for that - misinterpreted your intent with that image, especially considering the edit summary's section title. Sorry for the misunderstanding. -down load ׀ talk 21:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Got ya a baby trout. I thought it was because I momentarily blanked the page dealing with an {ec} Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Cristina[edit]

Thank you very much for having showed the error. I missed it. Glad to see that you're helping everyone. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And congrats on her day. When it's over, revert most of the shite that happened. nb: I /am/ discriminating in who I'll help. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of pictures on user talk page[edit]

I just made this edit, removing the picture you added earlier here. I did this for two reasons: (1) The placement implied to those coming to that talk page that Malleus added that picture when he started the thread, and it's only when you look at the page history that it becomes clear that you added it; this coupled with the fact that Malleus last edited the page before you added the image (when his talk page looked like this), led me to think it was best to remove it. If you do re-add it, can you please make clear who added it. (2) The second reason (and this would be a reason for no-one to re-add it) is that using historically sensitive images like that on a user talk page thread feels wrong on several levels. It gives the impression that a flare-up on Wikipedia is being compared to a lynching (you said, referring to Halifax Gibbet: 'Seemed an apt topic given all the shite'; I'm not entirely sure what you meant by reference to the 'cultural gap that drives most of the bat guano insane stuff'). Even if that is not what you intended, could you please consider what I've said here? Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd already seen your removal and intent to post here. It wasn't my intent to make it look like Mally had placed that. At first I just used |right| while editing the section; but when the whole page was there, the archive box caused the picture to drop, so I tried a few other things. Centring similarly had layout issues, so I parked it left, which sort of does make it look like Mally's.

/He/ may restore it; we're talking about stuff. I certainly was equating lynchings with the more extreme wiki flare-ups, though. The culture that burned Jesse is still with us, thankfully restrained from their more base urges most of the time.^{edit summary} — Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not restoring it. I don't take quite such a view that anything goes between two users on a user talk page thread, as it is a public discussion venue, not a private one, but that's for another time. Whether or not the comparison is accurate is not the point. Such comparisons can be made without appropriating pictures and using them to make a point. Pictures by their nature are powerful stuff and can be used to sway debates and draw people to read things they wouldn't otherwise have done. Consider the two uses of those images mentioned in the article: (1) as postcards, presumably sold to make money; (2) in that story by Du Bois in a newspaper. Now imagine where the uses of the image today falls on that spectrum: (i) in the article on the lynching; and (ii) on a user talk page thread. Arguably, use (i) and (2) are equivalent in that they spread understanding about the event, while use (1) is reprehensible. There was no internet then, but try and imagine what the reaction then would have been to the use of that image to illustrate a discussion on an emotive topic, but one that didn't involve murder and race and hate crimes. Maybe the effect of such use now has been dulled by time and distance, but I'm not so sure. It's the same reason I'm wary of the use of war recruitment posters to attract Wikipedia editors to edit on a topic. It diminishes the seriousness of the topic and makes an inappropriate juxtaposition between Wikipedia editors and those who fought and (in some cases) died in a war. Taking images out of their historical context and reusing them for other purposes has a long tradition, but it is something that has to be done with care. Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Daisy" advertisement

I like Mally; he's right about far more than he's wrong about. Note the he's got a mention of Giano just above that thread. And ya did follow my edit summary link above... (Guess who? I'm wearing the target, again. And you'll have read Fastily's remarks).

I see such use of images as quite useful. As with adverts, imagery gets past the built-in filters people have, to convey a message. How effective would ads be without colour, or sexual titillation? How about Daisy (advertisement)? →

With Jesse's image, I linked the article, both in the post and layered over the image. I see this as honouring him; his horrific death, and Mark's article, help such thing to happen rather less these days. Similarly, drawing a comparison to loathsome wiki patterns gives some pause about their participation in them. Not using strong imagery because it is out of context results in it being unknown. Many people were exposed to Jesse's article by that postcard being on display on a well-watched page. And it may result in someone not taking a torch with them on their next visit to WP:Great Dismal Swamp (cf Great Dismal Swamp maroons). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moar image-related stuffs[edit]

I don't know my way around commons. File:Mrose rose africa 1.005.jpg looks like a piece of fan-art to me, certainly a derivative work, but the licensing doesn't reflect this. What to do?

And welcome back. pablo 13:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That image is an obvious composite from unattributed sources. The account that uploaded it did nothing other than also add it as a single image gallery without no context. See WP:IG and cut the gallery, then pop over to commons, say what you did and something such as I said above; teh "Nominate for deletion" link is in the drop-toolbox on the left.

Terima kasih; what wine is being served? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What my bro' said ^^. There's also Commons:Commons:Deletion policy which outlines the steps you can take in some detail. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. Cunning, hiding the 'nominate for delete button' in plain sight. Obviously my eyes have been damaged by looking at that monstrosity. I may sue.
Am on the wagon myself, though as usual there is no shortage of whine round these parts. pablo 08:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do serve some robust whine, here. Saw a primo example not long ago ;) Cheers, Jack 16:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A kitteh for you![edit]

Thank you for cleaning up the references for the COTS 2 demo flight. Since this is an active event, I'll likely mess it up again, and request your help to fix up my Philistine defiling (it's the only way I can rapidly properly cite the sources to confirm what's happening). Thanks again, great job!

Abebenjoe (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've got it watched and will maintain it as things go along. See WP:LDR for background. It's dabomb. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the Falcon 9 article, Oi Vay! Last time I edited the citations, about six-months ago, they were fine. Now, bare urls and other deformaties. I'll work on Dragon C2+ first, but poor Falcon 9 deserves better reference formatting than it currently has.--Abebenjoe (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It's still rather a mess, but at least it's a neater mess. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinbish has taught your kitten to bite you shrewdly on the ass. Hopefully that has made your day better. Kittens are cute and have very sharp teeth! Spread the goodness of kittens by giving someone else a bitey kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. little ankle biter 14:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Bish! Bish! Bish! Bish!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teh awesome! Her name is Bijou. Teh place seriouz needz moar azzez byted. Moby Dick 16:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Bishou? Hehe, fine name! :-) [Db considers creating a User:Bijou sock for her own hitman kitten.[1] Her other faithful young torpedo, Baby Tex, already is a user: no sock (of hers, ahem), but very helpful and well trained for all that.] darwinbish ^BITE 09:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

So sorry, User:Bijou, is taken; User:Bishou, not taken (act fast, fuckwits watching). Bijou rl-kitteh, sleeps lots (and moar with teh claws;). Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Tiredly :] Don't encourage her, please. As if Bishzilla and I don't have enough to do, traipsing after the incorrigible db herself and apologising to the bitten! The darwin twins aren't allowed to create socks, as they very well know. The proliferation stops here! Bishonen | talk 12:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Meh; my mom taught me to change my socks everyday. It just feels right ; ) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re. User:Ucucha/HarvErrors[edit]

Thanks for all the great clean-up work you're doing on the battleship articles and for the encouragement on my own work on them. I'll admit, though, that I'm somewhat daunted by all the re-formatting you're doing since my strengths are in writing, editing and layout, not programming, so I'm a little intimidated about adding footnotes after seeing what you've done with the ones there already. BTW, many of the errors you are fixing were already there before I started work on these articles, so you are saving me a tremendous amount of work. Again, thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a small learning curve, true, and it took me watching BR do a couple for me before I learned, but I have found it well worth it in referencing errors no longer made.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'll keep dropping examples your way. It's straigtforward to copy-paste an {{sfn}} and then tweak the page number, and the page collation is automatic. The script help with broken syntax and missing/unused refs. I know that you're not introducing most of the issues the script is commenting on; no worries. I'm liking the work you're doing. I believe it was on the Maine that I first noticed you; it's now much improved. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The past will come back to haunt you[edit]

I was reported at the ANI by Surtsicna. Again, someone remembered that I was blocked once for "battleground mentality". Everyone who disagrees with me loves to remind us of that. What they ignore is that I was blocked precisely for ignoring someone's taunts and for making a ridiculous comment on someone else's talk page. I don't know where the "battleground mentality" sticks. I should thank the administrator who blocked me for that someday, you know? --Lecen (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people just figure if they repeat something often enough, everyone will believe them. Unfortunately, that is a frighteningly effective tactic. A lie gets halfway to China before the truth has its morning espresso etc. etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my conversation on Jclemens page where they are insisting that I come up with something to replace their untruths about me. Meanwhile the unture statement has sat unredacted for a fortnight. Rich Farmbrough, 08:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

And some still think it's not about 'score keeping'. The problem with transparency and scrutiny is the calibre of the people most often doing it. Wikipedia has 'everyone' so it's no surprise that we've the full spectrum of personality types here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider your block as valid, as Manning Bartlett, another admin (like Steve) who suddenly appears out of retirement, did not allow you any defense. Note that I'm not saying anything nefarious happened, just that an admin who was more up to date on things, might have acted more cluefully.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark - just as Josef Goebbels said.PumpkinSky talk 12:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

efn[edit]

What's up with Pengguna:Crisco 1492/Geger Pacinan? It's showing [lower-alpha 2] and not b. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing wrong with your wiki-text. I think it's a difference in their commons.css. Will look at it a bit... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, cuz both templates are the same. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the first thing I checked.

en:wp's MediaWiki:Common.css contains

div.reflist ol.references {
    font-size: 100%;           /* Reset font-size when nested in div.reflist */
    list-style-type: inherit;  /* Enable custom list style types */
}

while id:MediaWiki:Common.css doesn't. It's not as simple as pasting that in, either; something like it, though. id:Pengguna:Farras would be your first stop, there, and User:Gadget850, here. The different projects do their own thing re styling. There are going to be points in common, but some stuff is localised to bahasa Indonesia, some is simply behind and some is simply different. The missing key is that "inherit". Your page and the imported templates are trying, but the style is not getting all the way to the target. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This didn't do anything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should fix it ;) There may be more; you need to find who over there is the best at CSS; they would know much more about the "why" of the local CSS naming. It may be Farras; dunno. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Br'er with me here ... (zilla make pun)[edit]

OK ... if I'm understanding right .. the "{{reflist}}" thing is passe, and just putting the parameters in at article level is what I need to improve on.? ... stick with name only in prose .. but define parameters down in the "references" section? I want to get this right .. but it's a big change from what I learned back in my old days. I can get this .. but will need a little help. (thank you by the way) Chedzilla (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use the ref format style Br'er did on any of my recent articles. PumpkinSky talk 11:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full citation details embedded in the prose is soo... 2008. What a mess. It used to be that MedaiWiki could only do that; some learned that and then stopped learning. A pity. Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the technology. Better than it was before. Better...stronger...faster. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this way is better on many grounds, not the least of which is that it unclutters what you see and read in edit mode.PumpkinSky talk 18:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But like learning to walk all over from scratch again .. lol. I'll get there. Chedzilla (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intuitive, too. Imaging, clicking the [edit] for the references section, and getting to edit the references. The vertical form I use is much easier to scan an edit, too. There's a /reason/ books and journals have long put the details of footnotes outside the prose. They fuck things up when in line. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be warned, User:CBM is currently going around as "uninvolved admin" saying that adding a citation template is sin against humanity, while he garners little support for that, there is a smidge more for footnote listed references. They are, however, the best thing since sliced bread. Apart from sliced cheese to go on the sliced bread. Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

That's called having an agenda that's anti-wiki. LDR is best for things sourced to websites; {sfn} rulz for book/journals. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's only until the Next Great Thing comes along. Then, we will have to be flexible enough to change yet again. Think of it as yoga for teh wiki. -- Dianna (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course; The only thing constant is change. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking to one user name[edit]

Just in case you missed my request, let me repeat it here: Would you be okay with sticking to this one user name for now? With the exception of some important reasons that I probably don't need to know about, regularly creating new user names rarely has any use and only creates lots of confusion among everyone involved. And confusion only distracts from writing an awesome encyclopedia. :) --Conti|✉ 22:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't miss it. I'm sticking to this account for now. There's a lot about all this that I'm not going to comment on in public. They know. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that. He is blameless in that, and ArbCom was made very aware.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. :) --Conti|✉ 23:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good day[edit]

I am curious, have you decided the main areas of Wikipedia you want to edit, or are you considering possible new areas? My76Strat (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edit new areas every day. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable, If your interests extend into topics related to record production, I'd like you to consider assisting with a fledgling WikiProject. Especially if you are good with templates and code. My76Strat (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I've run into the WP:DISCOG; am the one who had MOS:DISCOG deleted ;) And I've yet to meet a WikiProject that wasn't largely about ownership and turf-guarding. So, I'm a tad sceptical... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have every reason to be skeptical about damn near everything that approaches you. I don't know your entire history nor when your problems began, but I have often wondered. For there was a time perhaps 18 months ago when you and I were party to the same ANI brought by gimmetoo regarding edits to the p-diddy article. If that marks the beginning of your trouble, Then I bear witness to the fact that you were wronged by that process. Regarding the WP, I need help, to ensure it doesn't become a thing like what you mentioned. We have a Project and a Portal and I'm certain there are many areas your experience could immediately improve. Do you know much about templates, parser functions, and html? My76Strat (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My problems? /Wiki's/ problems. I recall that thread, and your participation. Gimme's more than a little off most of the time and I hear that's been the case since at least 2006. I, of course, have been right since 2004 (on wiki;)

Don't be coy about it; links, pls. And yes, I know more than a bit about technical things ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did feel odd labeling those as "your problems". "Your headaches" would have conveyed my meaning better. I hadn't considered that I was being coy, but I can see how it would look that way. Best regards - My76Strat (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries – gnats is more like it, really. The 'coy' was asking aster what project and portal, not 'problems; ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no ongoing interest in record labels, I have written a few articles on indy labels and they are interesting. They are also disproportionately important because the story of the label is often vital to the story of the artists. So the two big errors we make here are deleting rather than merging or otherwise preserving small record label articles and categorising the massive (EMI - as was - actually consists of hundreds if not thousands of labels) labels in one category - this latter reflects our appalling coverage of business, where companies that are taken over often loose their article and become reduced to "Foo inc was acquired by Bar Corp" in 2012. Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

And consequently there might be something I'm interested in...Rich Farmbrough, 01:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

^^^Jump, Strat, jump^^^ ; Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowes[edit]

Please review: (I did both move to WP:LDR and one WP:SFN .. link. comments, tips, or laughter welcome. Chedzilla (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad; you do have to spell the author name right ;) Years need to agree, too. The Olson ref needed to have "| ref = harv" for {sfn} (or {harvnb}) to work. I did a few other bits of cleanup; {{plainlist}} is useful in infoboxes. The LDR was fine; I just fussed with the names and added spaces for readability. Cheers, Br'erZilla (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

d'oh *facepalm* on the spelling. :) ... was my first shot at the LDR stuff .. not nearly as difficult as I was afraid it would be. I'll read up on the "sfn" stuff (the "|ref = harv" thing), and try to get that under my belt as well. Thanks very much for the help and education - greatly appreciated. Chedzilla (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC) (aka User:Ched Davis)[reply]

You should add:

var SegregateRefsJsAllowConversion = true;
importScript('User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js');

to Chedzilla/common.js. Documentation is at:

User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.

Tip: name all the refs first.

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kitteh[edit]

Hi, I noticed you gave out a Kitteh, recently. I wanna know how to do too! --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You just copy-paste the code you saw and change the message to what you like ;) For mundane kitties, use the WikiLove button. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has the End of the World happened?[edit]

So, has anyone tried to kill you recently? Is everything ok? --Lecen (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WT:AC#Jack Merridew--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taht still tehre? Tehy missed the money shot. Things are ok ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archive is two weeks on that page.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I know that;) Isn't that great? "for everyone to see." Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So your 47 TPS (pretty good) don't see that, only me?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Up from 41, last I looked. And the battlegrounders are about to forum-shop their war to WP:AE; bottom of Teh Raul's talk page. So it will go up further ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC) (Raul, don't miss this)[reply]

I put in my own 2 cents in Jack's defense on the above-listed thread. I bet everyone will get a nice chuckle out of the last couple lines. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terima Kasih. I got Teh Orange Bar while opening that diff. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bravely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got his back. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I get blocked for telling it like it is, so be it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does happen, but you've got friends. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That I do, thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING[edit]

Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently, Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.

Posting of personal information Shortcuts: WP:OUTING WP:PRIVACY "WP:OUTING" redirects here. For the alternate meaning of outing, as in excursion, see Wikipedia:Meetup. For the Wikimedia privacy policy, see Wikimedia:Privacy policy. Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by Oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing.

The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to constantly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority.

If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and it should be made clear to the users blocked for outing that the block log and notice does not confirm the information.

Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.

Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bzzt. See this Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention report. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this: ANI:user:samuraiantiqueworld and false claims of outing. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've sworn off certain venues (ok, I slip sometimes) but it seems as though the outing occurred in the edit that created a certain user page and was posted there thru [| late December, 2011 ]. - UnbelievableError (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only "outing" is by them self, which seems to be what you're saying. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrasing: Given the evidence in my prior post, which has been available in the history of the user page since its creation, why are others still asking and wondering if there is a link between the user and the website? - UnbelievableError (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear from an image on commons that the .com is theirs, but that bit on their en:userpage is even better. Thanks for that. Since you're not interested in the WP:Great Dismal Swamp, I'll mention it. Should be checking back there, anyway. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bzzt; indef'd

Surrender of Japan[edit]

G'day! Obviously I'm missing something. I don't see any value added by this edit. There must be, or you wouldn't have gone to the effort. So, please could I bother you to explain the value added? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Nice photo on your user page! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's from User:The Inheritance of Loss, and the quote is from the book.

(talk page stalker) One of the problems of having 6,818,542 articles and only 122,676 active users is that it's a lot of articles for each editor to keep maintained. One way of helping out is to make an article's wiki-text as readable as possible; another way is to use scripts and bots to do the simple, repetitive work for you.

Looking at Br'er's edit, there are several examples of where he's inserted white space (space or newline) - that's surely just to improve readability of the wiki-text.

We would all agree that it doesn't matter whether template names have an initial capital or not, so if a script happens to render all template names in lower case, it does no harm, but can make the writing of the script simpler. You won't see it there, but a common example is where scripts substitute both {{Fact}} and {{fact}} with {{citation needed}} - it would be wasteful to have to check what the original capitalisation was, because {{citation needed}} is as good as {{Citation needed}}. These are the sort of things that ought to be going on "under-the-hood" as it were.

Again, it makes it easier for scripts to check and maintain references if they contain some degree of consistency. Strictly, an HTML attribute such as name="XYZ" requires quotes because its type is string. Often it makes no difference if the quotes are omitted, but whenever the name contains a space or certain other characters, then it needs the quotes. It's better to stick to the convention of always using quotes for the name of references because: (i) it complies with good practice for HTML; (ii) it makes it easier to write scripts which can find named references; (iii) it avoids a new editor struggling with an unquoted name that contains spaces when they copy and then modify the example they have seen in a Featured Article.

Our guidance on ISBN numbers says "Use 13-digit ISBNs, if available, as these are now standard as of January 1, 2007 and issued to new books". Replacing a 10-digit ISBN with a 13-digit one can only improve the citation, and again provide a better example for newer editors to copy and modify for their own use.

Finally there were these sort of bot inserted messages |postscript= Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. inconsistent citations that Br'er acted on to make the citations consistent.

All-in-all, I'd say there was a lot of very minor edits in that diff you gave; each of them only of very tiny value; but taken together, a worthwhile effort to make the article more maintainable and a better example for others to copy. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So although n*0=0, n*(something small) = (something bigger). Fair enough. Thanks Rex. Yes, that does help.

However, I do wonder if the return-on-investment justifies the effort. Never mind. Looking at it another way, ALL improvements are, ... improvements. And it's up to the individual as to where they devote their time and effort, and whether the "return-on-investment" is adequate for their own criteria. So I will now crawl back into my corner and keep my subjective opinions to myself. Thanks Rex. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What-Ralph-said. When I first visit an article I'll typically do this sort of remediation in the first few edits to get the lint out of the picture. On the quotes on named-refs, it's more than proper form, it's practical. While there is foolishness about saying that the quotes may be omitted if the name is without spaces (like /that's/ helpful;), fact is some tools only function properly if the quotes are present; WP:RefToolbar being the obvious one. It's presented to every user, including anons; see the "{{ }}" button. Also, on several of the restructured {{quote}} usages, removing the inline and instead using two newlines both makes the wikitext more canonical and results in proper spacing in the rendered page.Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New project[edit]

Hi Br'er Rabbit, I've just moved my new project (Clarence 13X) out of a sandbox into mainspace. Did I do ok with the templates? Feel free to work your magic on it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

found a missing curly! and {{sfnRef}} will protect the article from future changes to the anchor encoding. interesting article. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, after writing about so many white supremacists I needed a palate cleanse. Apologies for the EC, I thought I could finish my copyediting before you woke up—guess not! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually /get/ an (edit conflict), but I saw it coming and went around it ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay smartypants[edit]

Dear Mr Rabbit,

Could you do me a favour, and check these two if you have time? and make sure I didn't mess them up. Thanks.

Also, when the | below = consists of another template, should they be bodyclass? Does it matter? There doesn't seem to be any visible difference. -- Dianna (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wo/looking, you can use bodyclass on a higher-level template and it will "be there" for whatever is pulled-up as a contained template. But it's usually better to leave that business to the other template; it "knows" what it needs. There will be exceptions. Mebbe. I'll look at the others; if they're the sort I expect, they'll be the sort that nobody outside will much want to fuss with. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made some tweaks. That suite of templates is overly customised and it makes them more difficult to upgrade and maintain. Suggest leaving it to those who had the bad ideas to suffer with their work falling behind. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just wanted to finish the "A"s. No letter left behind, as it were. On to "B". -- Dianna (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you should work in vowel-order... Br'er Rabbit (talk)

"Weird alphabet jokes" gets 57,800,000 Google results, yet I was still unable to come up with a snappy comeback. Alas. -- Dianna (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lifted from Teh Onion Br'er Rabbit (talk)

Perhaps it's just a myth - but it appears that the poor letter "Y" was left out again in that deployment. sigh. Chedzilla (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

assert(!y); Br'er Rabbit (talk)

I think Mr Oeiaaaa could use some consonants. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He should do a film on location in Bosnia ;) Congrats. Br'er Rabbit (talk)

Hmm, that would be interesting. I think Indonesia did a peacekeeping mission there too. Or at least, that's what Garuda Contingent tells me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I knew they did a mission in Lebanon. I miss the people. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for !voting[edit]

	at my successful RFA
	Thank you, Br'er Rabbit, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. (And yes, you cut in line) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You rock. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish it, promise! Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Do you like have a script for that? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be telling. It does help to use a better editbox ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, or a better computer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trust no one at Sim Lim Square. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy anything if I can't see a price tag. Drives Mrs Crisco insane, since she's 100% Indonesian in her shopping. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let her do all the local shopping. For "edit boxes", just order online; FedEx-pays off customs and it works fine. Tip the delivery guy. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fed-Ex? Argh, burning my money would be more efficient. Yeah, I do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You want to actually /get/ what you ordered ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do, don't worry. Now, if someone sends me a million dollars I'd rather have a direct transfer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picturing that as IDR 10,000,000,000… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A million is decent. Thanks, that pretty much covers how much I spent on Chrisye ... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation question[edit]

Hi Br'er Rabbit, I have a question about a templates that just came up in an article I'm writing. What do you do if one author published a journal article and a book in the same year? (Of course, I'd usually use {{sfn|Smith|2012|p=1}} for a book or journal article published by Smith, but I can't do both.) Should I add the titles to the sfn ({{sfn|Smith, Journal Article Title|2012|p=1}} & {{sfn|Smith, Book Title|2012|p=1}}) or is there a better way to do it? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{sfnRef}} and {{sfn}} pretty much as above. I'd suggest italics on the book title and quotes on the journal title, so nikkimaria will be able to sleep nights. Br'erRabbit 00:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

lol, will do, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See what I just did here; the book in two volumes. I did one with quotes in the last day or so, but don't recall where. Br'erRabbit 00:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that should work. I'll just have to remember to do the .27.27 business in the cite book template. (I like the new sig) Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New sig is only 664 bytes! It goes with the “pocket money”, and on Dianna's page. There was talk of fixig the {sfnRef} encoding to not need the .27.27 trick, which would be goodness. Br'erRabbit 04:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Poem tag[edit]

Thanks for introducing me to it! Good to know. I've needed it before!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing's good, and it's better than poor markup. Br'erRabbit 11:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar you deserve[edit]

Δ This user has endured a wide breadth of the institutional ignorance that darkens this organization, yet loves it still. Δ

This is the "Black barnstar of institutional shame" that unfortunately you and some others from this site deserve. The message only displays when highlighted as if to copy. I hope you will treasure the fact that many users, like me, are glad you remain a colleague. My76Strat (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and like me, glad --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

;) Br'erRabbit 11:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ;) See also: {{blackout}} Br'erRabbit 11:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Why did it cut the words after yet? My76Strat (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NM it didn't; I like your new sig. My76Strat (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) float:center; is invalid ;> I'm seeing the words after "yet". Br'erRabbit 11:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Very nice and appropriate.PumpkinSky talk 14:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you[edit]

On Garret Hobart#Electoral history, your work after I had written it, I had had an asterisk designate "incumbent". That's a fairly-well understood convention, I think, and I'd like to restore it. Is there a way of doing it that wouldn't be an absolute mess? Hope you're doing well, it's been quiet recently.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done. That was just an off-the-cuff tweak to show how to use {{efn}} in another context. It would have precluded using a regular explanatory notes section (could have been tweaked to something link I did on Philippine–American War, i.e. lower-roman). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate?[edit]

"You think you've been helpful enough here, George?" What do you mean about what you said? --George Ho (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rhetorical question; I don't think you were being helpful. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the article was improved ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, George added two spaces. The other improvements would have occurred regardless. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYKSG#H2: If I substantially expanded the article or make one ALT hook of a nomination, then my reviews would have been invalid. In other words, adding two spaces is just minor, not substantial. --George Ho (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

missed the point, again. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T:TDYK#How to review a nomination says so, as well. --George Ho (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move along, George. I get the last word on my talk page. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i replied on the FAC, but[edit]

i did reply on the FAC page, but shouldn't do so again. if you wanna upbraid me further, please do it on Talk. Tks. – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply where I see fit, tks. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, that does look like I'm telling you what to do.. but no, I was just saying that the remarks are off-topic for that forum. But OK, then. – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're on-topic because that's where you're making your attacks. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I am engaging an editor who may be close you about a topic that you have personal feelings regarding. I only want the topic approached with careful thought. The key point: Hasty corrections of major facts are a huge red flag... – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This? It's only you reading the former as meaning that is was all Chinese Indonesians killed; it wasn't of course, and the linked article would offer the whole story.

Stay off my talk about this; I see it as you seeking to keep the criticism of your participation in that FAC anywhere but where it's most apt. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. I was also saying that FAC talk might be better than FAC page.. but... last post here on this topic. I hope all things in your life go well. – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can read. If you post in this thread again, I'll simply revert. It is inappropriate to seek to discuss this other than where you're making poor posts. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Chock[edit]

Thanks for your support here. I both wanted to see it run a bit longer and was hoping that someone else would take action as I might have been considered uninvolved. I thought it would end up the way it did, but that was even faster than I expected. Glad you are working on the article for GA also I know little about GA. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Doug. Things seems to have found their way to an appropriate conclusion. The IPs I'm seeing should be considered in any unblock request because my Jack-sense says same voice pretty clearly. I'll do the work I offered on the articles Maunus has been working on and hopefully we'll see him back soonish. Cheers, Br'erRabbit 02:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about P-functions[edit]

How difficult (and would you assist) would it be to parse a function allowing an editor to post an accolade from an essay instead of having to copy paste the template code manually? Thanks for considering this. My76Strat (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you want something like the WikiLove tool, which would be non-trivial. Better to ask Ryan about that. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BR, I'll do that in short order. I have plucked rabbit hairs trying to figure how to remove the white space atop P:RECP It would be great if this were an easy fix and if perhaps you could save a few hares. My76Strat (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

newlines fuckin' up in transcluded pages ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir, you are the genuine article. Anyone can claim to be Jack Merridew, but only one can achieve the man's measure. My76Strat (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Jack's only 12 years old ;/ Br'erRabbit 06:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Signature[edit]

Hey Br'er Rabbit. I noticed your new signature, and was very impressed, it's easily the best looking sig I've seen on wikipedia. Having said that, I was wondering if you'd consider changing it, or at least keeping it to this page - at 664 characters it blows the 256 char limit from WP:SIG out of the water. Cheers Worm^TT(talk) 09:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just code I've pasted in a few times on this page and a few others. This is my sig: Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

another:

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Br'erRabbit 10:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, please accept my apologies! I remember snooping at how you made your Gold Hat signature a while back, taught me a few tricks for a website I was building. Didn't end up using them, the guy wanted something simpler, but I liked it! Worm^TT(talk) 10:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better; you may stay. /That's/ the point of an occasional over the top sig; to demonstrate a coding technique. Do you understand how it works? Br'erRabbit 10:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(hint: see: User talk:Diannaa#on trapezoids) (moar silliness;)

As far as I can see, it's a sneaky use of the border to the centre of the bordered area and making one transparent, leaving an empty triangle. Would never have occurred to me to do that, but what really stunned me is that IE coped with it! As for the trapezoids discussion on Diannaa's page you've managed to make my head hurt. So thanks. (Still looking at it...) Worm^TT(talk) 10:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All border tricks ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Took a little while, but I think I've got it.

Had no idea borders were so versatile. Will keep in mind for the future! Worm^TT(talk) 10:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk, tsk, that's 304 bytes ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't win... can I

Worm^TT(talk) 10:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu, I see you're no stranger to this conversation! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The rules!" shouted Ralph, "you're breaking the rules!" ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why we didn't see cool signatures like that more often, guess it must be the character limit. Too bad. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:IAR = ""Bollocks to the rules! We're strong — we hunt! If there's a beast, we'll hunt it down! We'll close in and beat and beat and beat — !" ? Chedzilla (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and IAR is /policy/. Br'erRabbit 03:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That ribbon signature is epic. Seriously impressive. Jesse V. (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rundstedt[edit]

Please don't waste your time tinkering with the later parts of this article, because I am going to rewrite the whole thing. Thanks for fixing up my referencing. I suggest you wait until I rewrite each section and then fix up my text afterwards. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; I was done for the time being. For most of what I do, I edit whole pages, and it matters little what part of an article is 'fresh'. I have it watched and will return if I see anything needful. Or just let me know when you're at a good pausing point. Nice work. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of the Philippines[edit]

thought you might have an opinion in this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR Perch opened[edit]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 13, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you[edit]

		The Minor Barnstar
		For letting Dave1185 know that his behavior is destructive. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sfn for Video[edit]

Hi. I want to use this documentary [2] as reference. What is the best to do so using sfn? Do you suggest I give minutes for loc.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to use {{cite video}} and set footnote text with |ref={{sfnRef}}. Using |loc= for a time is correct. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Pretty sure its done right at Ruma Maida — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yup; like that ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William B. Ide Adobe State Historic Park[edit]

Greetings -- I noticed you reverted a section which I had deleted from this article. The reference for the CBS5.com link is invalid because it does not link to an article supporting the statement about park closures under Governor Schwarzenegger. When I clicked on the link it lead me to the website for the TV station without any specific connection or data to support the statement. Let me know if you can resolve this issue. Best regards ChesPal (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did? I think that was an edit conflict. I'll look and probably restore if you've not. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added this archive link. Feel free to take things where you like. I have to go for now. Sorry for any hassle. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for straightening this out. I plan to add some photos from my archives soon. ChesPal (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Photos were added yesterday. :-). ChesPal (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking nice; thank you for contributing those. I fussed with the page a bit, combining two duplicates to the state's website. I also made the link to the specific page about this page instead of the whole parks site. That will help people get there quickly. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help a bunny[edit]

In the same manner that you removed white space on P:RECP, will you look to remove white space at WP:RECP making the header and tabs seamless? My76Strat (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're just newlines; they create gaps, just like they do between article paragraphs. Removed ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as I see how you append the fix's I request, I also learn a new thing, so make it a double thanks! And here's a chance to double down. In my browser view it renders as if the file sits directly on the "R" of Record. Can you create some space there? My76Strat (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what "File" really. Any better? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks the same. re "File:78RPM styled icon .png" inside the /header template. Also I enlarge my view 4X so that probably contributes. I am also curious as to why my tabs don't display the open tab in a darker color like most others I have seen? My76Strat (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "WikiProject Record Production" line-wrapping for you and dropping under the gramophone? You need a wider screen ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you have got the header looking much better now. Very nice - My76Strat (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made it better, I hope...[edit]

... yes?

Thanks for nudging me toward the big girl citation system :) Accedie^{talk to me} 00:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You took to that like a fish to water; nicely done. I took it further, too. Br'erRabbit 00:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Portals[edit]

Do you know anything about the automatic cycling of portals? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean dynamically changing page content? Yeah ;) Please undelete:

user:Jack Merridew and I'll show you how it's done.

(unprotect, too; and talk). The page does quite a bit of dynamic change of content, colours, layout, imagery. Be good to see that again; people like copying my user pages (there are dozens, if not more, based on various pages of mine). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it, but I won't wheel war over it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih. Please unprotect, too. No one serious is gonna hassle, at this point. Purge the page and stuff changes, on different cycles. The main cycles is daily, but there are others.

I'm looking at List of battlecruisers. That's full of nbsp and needs more re-thinking. there are lot of such tables, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna need:

User:Jack Merridew/Sock drawer dan
User:Jack Merridew/Accounts map restored, too

I'm gonna do a soft redirect at the bottom

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll get to fussing with some of the details of the page. I may update or not use those subpages. And there is more than one userpage design in the history of the page, some of which use other subpages that will need undeleting.

If you review the source of the page, you'll find {{#switch:…}}. Thirty of them, with lots inside them. This is the mechanism for dynamic content. In this page, the switch keys off things like the date, hour, numberofedit (which amounts to a random). /What/ it changes is a lot; text, pictures, CSS. If you look again tomorrow, you'll a page design using File:Narzisse.jpg, the day after, another.

A simpler example of using a switch would be User:Jack Merridew/Note switch 2:

“The only real nation is humanity”

Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K, I think I get this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note, I had only forgotten to unprotect the page; wasn't deliberate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
is ok; ma'af ;) Let me know if you need help with that portal. fyi, you may be hearing from a mate of mine in Jakarta. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Done the selected biographies and DYKs so far. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you get the related portals bar at Portal:Indonesia to look like the rest but stay hidden? Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just noticing that; should be forcable to white... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

like that? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, but I couldn't get that border to disappear or change colour. :( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a border, it was 2px of cellpadding. It was also what was keeping the content off the left edge. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I've no clue how to deal with it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You removed that whole thing, and used the same as the others (which is prolly for the best). I fixed-up some of the modules. One's not really "good enough" ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know jack (no pun intended) about template coding. I'm just worried about the prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW rabbit thanks for helping crisco with the portal - it had been sitting comatose like a bintang soaked frog outside an expats bar in un-named location somewhere in java - all i see in his edit history is a fevered re-building. ta Satu Suro 10:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on some bits, again. It's all far behind the times and unmaintained. The id topics module was full of redirects and may be missing newer provinces and the like. It's a pity most of the wiki is failing. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	You're a hero. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

poem box overlap on my user page[edit]

I have noticed (Chrome and Safari, Mac; not able to use FF atm) that if I shrink the browser window, the quotation text to the left overlaps the two poem boxes. A minor niggle, but possibly one that you could bring your teh massive skillz to bear upon? pablo 13:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this being talked about, somewhere. Got an example you could point at? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My user page - transcluded from /Quotes. It's mainly the lower box, with the French poem in. pablo13:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, like the section header says? I'll look. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yeah - that's where I hid it! pablo 13:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing a slight overlap in the top-left corner of the quote box at smaller widths. I've run Chrome for stretches and have seen this sort of thing elsewhere, too. I'm thinking it's a webkit bug because there are margins in place and they should be preventing this. There are some interesting bits going on in quote box, but it doesn't seem broken. I'll marinate on it. Hope you're well. Br'erRabbit 13:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, I thought it might have been something I'd caused fannying about with extra <div>s etc. I'm well thanks; very busy, which is a mixed blessing!
Fancy new bogus sig is well impressive. Diagonals eh ... Mr._X ^(talk)15:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was looking at in the {{quote box}}; extra divs. But it's a fairly common things for styling hooks. Busy can be good; makes your life fly by, though. There's talk above about the sig, and an example of the technique. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

← Well I can live with it. Minor niggle. And anything is better than the last resort. pablo 22:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped supporting anything IE-specific quite a while ago. I'll let you know if I spot a webkit solution. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prettifying....[edit]

O-kay, heres something you might enjoy. Wikipedia:The Core Contest (and subpages) could do with some formatting and prettifying. I thought you might be happy to as it is about promoting core encyclopedic material.....any colour scheme is ok, as long as it is encyclopedic ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inceidentally, looks like we're running it again soon, so might gain some impetus :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Br'er is the one to prettify, I'd be interested in the actual project, which I'd never heard of before. I'd mostly be interested in plants, animals, geography and history. I've long thought it embarrassing how bad so many core/vital articles are.PumpkinSky talk 01:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you think you've posted enough places that everyone'd know and still forget how big wikipedia actually is....read up and go for it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 3.9 million+ articles alone is bigger than most people can comprehend. Yet we're still terribly lacking coverage on Indonesia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know… that the article on the most powerful volcanic eruption in recorded history is a /stub/?

Br'erRabbit 02:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering I looked at it not 4 hours ago, yes. Terrible... absolutely terrible. The article on the volcano has more information. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Coral Island[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I like the tidying up of references you did recently, especially that {{efn}} template, which I'd not seen before; makes adding notes so much easier. I have a question though: why did you change ;Bibliography to '''Bibliography''', for instance? (I'm not complaining, simply curious.) George Ponderevo (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{efn} is nice, glad you like. The use of ';' for bold is an inappropriate shortcut. The ';' syntax is for definition lists: Help:Lists#List basics. You also restored the {{HighBeam}} templates, which seems a new bit of /spam/. It both links to their article and to the WP:namespace. I don't think this appropriate; the generic {{subscription required}} is quite adequate. I'll have to have a talk with Andy about it. Anyway, I'm going to clean it back up. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that one of the conditions for the allocation of those free HighBeam accounts was that HighBeam was explicitly credited as the source, at least in part because what's on their site isn't a direct copy of the original source, and may therefore potentially differ from it. Therefore, pending a definitive outcome from your discussions with Andy I've cleaned up your cleaning up. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice little edit war you're starting, George. You also removed the inappropriate ';'s. And you're wrong about the use of that template be required (or any in-article attribution being required). It's simply spam. Please back up your assertion. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to tango Mr Rabbit. Have you taken the trouble to look at the conditions under which the HighBeam accounts were made available? Get back to me when you have. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the condescension, George. You added these, I removed them (along with other editing), you re-added them (which puts you into edit warring territory). You are also discussing it, here, but explain to me the part about you getting to overrule me, ok? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations: You should provide the normal citation information for the source (i.e., author, title, date, etc.). You may provide a convenience link to HighBeam (and HighBeam Research would presumably appreciate it); if you do so, it should be labeled as "subscription required". I read that as stating that providing a link to HighBeam is a courtesy, not an obligation – and that a "subscription required" is sufficient. HTH. --RexxS (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yup; as I was discussing with Mally on his talk. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So can you explain to me Rexxs why it is that I'm being subjected to Br'er Rabbit's harassment for choosing to extend that optional courtesy to HighBeam? George Ponderevo (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshite, George. Just Bullshite. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... thus proving my point. Is it your intention to do any significant work to The Coral Island or simply to harrass those that do? George Ponderevo (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One 'r' in harass, George. And that's /Mally's/ article, not your article. I'm going remove the spam-tag again, since you're the one that's gone and added it. See WP:BRD, and make your case on the article talk page (not here, please). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my article, Mally's article, or your article, it's Wikipedia's article, and I've seen no evidence that Mally has objected to the use of the {{HighBeam}} template in any case, so why should you? . And please do not accuse me of adding a spam tag again. I have made my case, and Rexxs has agreed on your talk page that the tag is an optional courtesy, which the documentation appears to confirm. When you have a consensus to have the {{HighBeam}} template deleted is the time for you to be forcing your views down the throats of others. Until then, the template stays. George Ponderevo (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, George. Bzzt. ↑↑↑ that's not how it works. You're edit warring, pure and simple, over corporate spam, and making inappropriate claims of harassment. I don't respond mildly to that. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to get worked up about all this, but I can't override my Apathy Reflex. Anyhow, wasn't there a FAC thread recently? There should be some very discreet way to send a little love to Highbeam... templates do not tend to be the soul of discretion, BTW...howzabout just one of those thingies, atop the refs, perhaps? But I defer to WT:FAC... – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia talk:HighBeam/Applications#"Original citation"? Or this Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 95#Citing Highbeam sources? Seems to support /optional/. Not George's way or the highway. Do please get worked up about this ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I never doubted they were optional! I thought we were all sorta moving to that understanding in the thread above. My point was a compromise suggestion: One and only one of the template thingies, atop the refs. But just a suggestion. – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's important to know precisely which sources were accessed via HighBeam, not that one or more unspecified ones may have been. George Ponderevo (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way to avoid accusations of harassment is quite simple; don't harass other editors. And by what contorted logic is it me who's edit warring and not you? If attributing to HighBeam is optional, then why are you insisting on removing my attribution to HighBeam? George Ponderevo (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the harassment bullshite, George, I already told you I don't react mildly to such bollocks. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Oh, we all just need to have a nice cuppa tea or a smoke or something. We can work this out. Disagreements about optional things are inevitable... I wish WT:FAC had said something conclusive... anyhow, most FAC regulars are (or were, i am a bit behind) conservative about the text, and would consider a downpour of templates to be unappealing... but there is no rule against it per se... so a compromise, then, maybe..? – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)×2 Optional, obviously! Edit warring is not the way to make things happen. That's n00b-101. My take is that the /link/ is sufficient. It's the core thing they're after, anyway. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SEO? Wikipedia uses nofollow tags. No SEO help from template or links, I'm afraid... that why a single shout-out might be done discreetly... – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that; the links are still valuable to them, just not /as/ valuable. The links alone attribute to them. This needs discussion and this is not the page for it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why have you been edit warring? In reply to Ling.Nut3, there's no objection to templates per se: just look at how often {{subscription}} or {{ODNBsub}} are used without even a murmur of disapproval. If the perceived problem here is the style of attribution to HighBeam, then the appropriate thing to do would be to start a discussion on the {{HighBeam}} template and reach some kind of consensus. George Ponderevo (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've struck agreement! both of you agree that "This needs discussion and this is not the page for it. "– Ling.Nut (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this page isn't wide enough for all three of us. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)×2 Funny, you said above "the template stays" until I get it deleted. That sounds like you think your view trumps. here You say there is no dispute, when I clearly indicated so in the edit summary of the edit you're edit warring over. And it's laughable that you're calling me the edit warrior. Bzzt. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i suggest that both of you conclude that you are the one who is really right, but graciously permit the other to live unmolested. meanwhile, i further suggest you start a thread somewhere which discusses template usage, and not each other's obvious wrongness.– Ling.Nut (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Teamwork Barnstar

For your outstanding support and dedication in getting Yogo sapphire from a new article to DYK to GA to FA and FOUR. The team effort of the uncountable people involved in getting this unique article to FA is a textbook case of teamwork in article improvement, ie, what Wikipedia should be, not what it all too often is. I can never thank everyone enough. PumpkinSky talk 23:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih. You enjoy teh bottle, tonight. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRC[edit]

Hello Br'er Rabbit. I am curious, do you ever use irc? My76Strat (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Evil place, full of idiots. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let me ask if you would look at a series of templates to see where areas of immediate improvement might be available. User:My76Strat/tem3 outlines some questions I have as they relate to a record producers discography as illustrated in Richard Landis production discography. Any ideas or help will be greatly appreciated. My76Strat (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, my eye!!! Don't you know that I'm quite critical of lurid colours and poor table structure? Those are the first things I'd seek to improve. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to all suggestions. The structure is likely poor because I am very novice as you can probably tell. The colors can be toned down if you feel it detracts too much. Perhaps I can do something with the border only. I did want to coordinate the colors with the infobox colors. That was my goal. I got to go to work soon but I am interested in your opinion and help. My76Strat (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Level up, player one![edit]

Role-playing game bling aplenty available with this merry crowd! pablo 11:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whole thing was driven by 24 (TV series)'s "Counter Terrorist Unit". cf: Rupert Murdoch's world view. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For saying that IRC is an evil place, full of idiots, I award you this Cheesy Smile Barnstar. KUTGW! – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

help?[edit]

Hi,

I'm reviewing Blackford County, Indiana and it has a "Harv error: link to #CITEREFShockley1914-03 doesn't point to any citation." for ref 60. The editor fixed one of those errors, but he doesn't see the problem with one. Can you help?

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to it. I tweaked the Gbook urls, but they still have other debris in them. Gbooks offers a link button that provides a cleaner url than copying out of the address bar; would be a good fix to go through them. Best, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! (What do you mean Gbooks offers a link button? I don't see where that button is.) MathewTownsend (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HighBeam[edit]

Thanks for alerting me to the discussion and I apologize for the delay in responding. Using the '{{Highbeam}}' template is not explicitly required. I do think it is appropriate in most cases where HighBeam is used to specifically, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which would alert the reader that HighBeam was the source and also that a subscription is required. That allows the reader to find the exact place where the source is located (as the editor used it) and also courteously alerts them to the fact that it is not free. This should always be done in addition to linking the full citation details of the original source so that a reader may seek out that source in an other, preferably free location. It is indeed a nice way to give something back to HighBeam, but that's not my main motivation for suggesting it. More important to me is giving the reader all the information they need to locate the source and see it in the form the editor saw it in. I'm sorry this caused some dispute. Where heated cases or disagreements come up, we'll just have to discuss the details and come to a consensus. This is a new program so it's quite possible that consensus doesn't exist in full yet, and my instructions, while an attempt to lay the groundwork for such a consensus, cannot substitute for the community actually coming to it on its own. Please let me know if there are further disputes or if I can help clarify things in any way. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not required. And I don't think it at all appropriate. For example, we have a huge number of links to works on gbooks, but we typically don't say so explicitly. My view is the the url itself is sufficient; it locates a resource. They're quite specific about where someone's saying they got a source. I'm a strong supporter of full citation details: the /original/ source. These links are dead ends for most readers, but with a lure of a seven day trial. This undermines most of the value of the url. I would be fine with people using Highbeam and omitting the near-useless link. If they do include it, then {{subscription required}} is more than enough. I'm not sure where the best place to sort a consensus on the whole spammy nature of this is, but am thinking that a wp:tfd would be a good place to start. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get whatever good I can from the bad[edit]

Despite our recent disagreement about wiki markup on the The Coral Island I have learned something from you about alternative citation styles. I'm working on a bunch of other articles on childrens' topics including this one. The article itself obviously still needs a lot of work, but I'm wondering if the citation style is now one you approve of? Anyway, no hard feelings I hope. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're using {{efn}}, including the named form, as well as LDR. You are using a rather scrunched together format which is needlessly difficult to read. On the named refs, you really should use quotation marks (doc say they can be omitted in simple form, but there are problems with that approach; breaks some tools). I'd also suggest eschewing {{citation}} in favour of {{cite book}} and kin; they're more standard; are what the toolbar offers. And I saw that you've seen that sometimes, simple bold is sufficient. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stick with the {{citation}} template, as I can't be bothered with all the fiddly {{cite}} templates. But what do you mean by "scrunched together format"? George Ponderevo (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lackofwhitespace br'rerabbit21:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of whitespace where? And what's the argument for quotation marks in named references where they're unnecessary to emit correct HTML? George Ponderevo (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there, George. Quotes are part of what's called "well formed" markup. It's in the spec. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand what what "well-formed" means in the context of HTML Br'er Rabbit, but what I'm learning from this is that whatever I do will never satisfy you. So I will from now on concentrate on content; you can of course follow me around and fix up all of my citation "errors" if that might amuse you. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, George; I really don't know shit about markup. Whatever you say ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't. But I don't want to fight with you Mr Rabbit, so I hope we'll be able to avoid each other in the future; what you think you know is of no interest to me. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time for you to get off my page, George. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Rexxs had persuaded me that you were a reasonable person, but I see that I was mistaken in believing him. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, George, I'm such a clueless n00b; all willful and cocksure in my zeal to gnome teh wiki. I'll be sure to ask your expert opinion next time a have trouble closing a break tag. May I have my page let alone, now? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable[edit]

What sneaks through FAC sometimes. Thanks for the fix, I'll probably nominate Clarence 13X at FAC next week, just waiting for my copyeditor to get back from a business trip. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed starring that on ;) was busy playing "fetch". Clarence need any help? I'll look… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only thing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should see this.^(old) They passed it in that shape. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, but could you make a "Crybaby barnstar" for people who spend a lot of time complaining about minor things. I think this would be the perfect picture. I've been really tempted to use it a few times. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, Mark. Don't ever express surprise at what has been passed. For dark ages now, I have kept silent. But, someday, I will shake off the trappings of imbecility (or pretend to). And then... I shall take actions that will astound you! (I hope I'm quoting Alec Guinness here.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to being astounded :) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before I went to FAC with the Stephens City, Virginia article, I had a peer review done on it. Before taking it to TFA, another peer review. I always checked to make sure, but then again, I had a couple really good teachers (Wehwalt being one) teaching me what to do. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You had a peer review after it made FA? Wow, that's a lot of effort. With the article I linked to above (Sadler) I had two peer reviews, but both after GA and before FA. I had two PRs on Elias Abraham Rosenberg too. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mind keeping up the tinkering, it is important to encourage the next generation of editors. Unfortunately, not much encouragement from the top, but I learned in business school successor planning is everyone's responsibility.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Burges article is probably a good article (I should actually read it). But the FAC process failed it miserably. The errors I fixed should have been addressed earlier, but they certainly should have been caught by any process that purports to result in our best work. The tools and methods to find and fix those issues are available and reasonably well known. But the process isn't really about getting things firing smoothly on all cylinders, it's about a power hierarchy and kissing the ring. Bzzt ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree, but I think that the delegates are overall doing a better job now, compared to how things have worked in the past year or two. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the “delegates”, it's the lack of participation by the technically astute. The process is unfriendly to that; it's not part of what's valued. It's a bril-prose-only mindset. That the references actually be coherent and verifiable is not a value that's encouraged, there. There's no excuse for basic issues like the following to have gotten through a review that purports to showcase our best work. There were also seven {{harvnb}} footnotes that did not link properly to a full citation. /And/ there's the crap a simple run of citation bot sorted out.

{{harvnb\|Lawrence & Wilson\|p=15}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb\|Crook\|1981a\|p=84}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb\|Gillingham\|p=37}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb\|Cherry & Pevsner (2004), ''The Buildings of England:Devon''\|p=527}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb\|Crook\|1981a\|p=231}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb\|Crook\|1981a\|p=308}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb\|Crook\|1981a\|p=309}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb\|Crook\|1981a\|p=317}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb\|Crook\|1981a\|p=325}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb\|Crook\|1981a\|p=91}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
Country life	Multiple references are given the same name
BanhamGallery1984	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, 84	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, 283	Multiple references are given the same name
Sherwood & Pevsner, 1974, 222	Multiple references are given the same name
Sherwood & Pevsner, 1974, 223	Multiple references are given the same name
The Building news and engineering journal	Multiple references are given the same name
Gillingham, 37	Multiple references are given the same name
Cherry & Pevsner, 2004, 527	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, 231	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, 308	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, 309	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, 317	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, 325	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, 91	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, Appendix B	Multiple references are given the same name

Br'erRabbit 16:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

← Incidentally, but on a related note, shouldn't this include the instruction to use quotes in named refs? pablo 16:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; it's a terrible shortcut that should be deprecated. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discouragement of contributors[edit]

I was sorry to see your comments at User:KJP1's page. Prefacing your comments with "I'm not criticising the article per se; my concern is the values of the FA-process itself" is about as unhelpful and negative (and to KJP1, irrelevant) a comment to a first time FA editor as I can imagine. Despite your comments I hope KJP1 will remain a contributor to Wikipedia, but I know from the sidelines that KJP1 has found it tough getting this magnificent article to FA and I just hope your comment is not the thing that decides KJP1 to abandon us rather than contribute more top-flight articles. Sincere wishes, Tim riley (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, it wasn't my intention to discourage KJP1; that was about clarifying that the issue is not his article, but the review process. See the section just above and User talk:GrahamColm#Script. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it wasn't, and I don't know who was responsible for complicating the citation arrangements with the mind-bogglingly user-unfriendly citation system adopted here, rather than the straightforward usual <ref></ref> system that has seen me through more than a dozen FACs. Tim riley (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me; I never saw that article before yesterday. I just fixed it up; I do a lot of that. The harv/sfn system is really very useful. I've sold a lot of editors on it: Wehwalt, Brianboulton, for example, whom I know you know. Many others, too. I could explain the advantages, if you're open to listening. See above for some of the disadvantages to <ref></ref> (and there are other disadvantages)Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the system isn't always intuitive. But I think FA is evolving , because the tiller is unattended and responds to any firm direction, in favor of not allowing the sort of citation error that the system advocated by Br'er fixes. It is vital not to discourage new FA editors, but still their articles need to avoid these errors, which is something easily checked, easily corrected.. You don't use it, but then, you are very careful about references. The important thing is that these errors get fixed, which I think you both agree on.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Wehwalt. PumpkinSky talk 20:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this has been told to me before, but Alarbus was helping me learn how to correct these mistakes and I've lost his tips. Is there a page where how to deal with all this discussed? I have the error script installed but I'm fearful of what to do when I see the errors. (perhaps too timid) (some of us who aren't technically brilliant would like to be!) MathewTownsend (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Looks like it's gonna be this page, for a bit. That other talk was on template talk:sfn, I think. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (This is the new "it" page, right?) MathewTownsend (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it (scroll) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You kindly formatted the refs in Manfred von Richthofen (general) in what I call Alarbus style. New sources were added, could you handle those as well or should I try? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a first pass. They still need better names, cite templates and such. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (thinking of Messiah) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiramasu. Wasn't that the old saying. ;-) 64.134.168.97 (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O HAI, welcome to my talk page. Terima kasih, Br'erRabbit 22:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see you back. Your image suggestions are always useful, and I look forward to some more good collaborations. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:KJP1 tells me he wasn't in the least put off WP by your comments, and I withdraw and apologise. Your good intentions, I hope I need not say, were never in doubt. I hope we are friends, not least because I see we are both Wiki-colleagues of several editors whom I admire very much. Best wishes, Tim riley (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tim. Accepted, no worries. I just read KJP1's comments to you. I would have helped earlier had I known of this article; I only noticed it as a newly promoted article, so that's when I looked. The improvements to the referencing mechanism increased the verifiability of things by positively associating the footnotes with the sources. That's a lot of why I use it. My offer to explain the advantages is still open. Let me know. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Brundage FA[edit]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for editorial efforts that helped Avery Brundage become a WP:FA.

This user helped promote Avery Brundage to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tony. Br'erRabbit 22:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

help again?[edit]

Sorry that I seem to learn nothing about how to fix these things, but John Horsefield has the "Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation" message. I did try to figure out how to fix it, but ... MathewTownsend (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That simply means that no footnote is linking to that citation. That particular one is using {{citation}}, which 'enables' the harv system by default, and none of the footnotes are even trying to link to the full citations. You can safely ignore the warning; general readers will never see it... I'm throwing the citation bot at the article now and it will give it a kick. Thing's slow, today, though. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So footnote 34 ^ Prestwich & Whitefield Heritage Society - that shouldn't link there? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It /could/ link, but it's just a piece of plain text sitting there. No link at all; noe of them are. I tried to tweak that article but Sitush kept edit conflicting me. That should be a {{cite document}}, btw. The message you're seeing is really just a warning; it's informational. That cite is enabled for harv linking, but nothing is doing so. The script is just telling you that. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seen and cited in a briar patch, Br'er Fox[edit]

Footnote templates: I'm not quite certain how to take this forward. Of the WP contributors with whom I have worked most closely over the years, User:Brianboulton uses quote cites and User:Ssilvers doesn't, and hates them, as I do. I invite you to set up your stand on your talk page or mine and seek to convert us unbelievers. I don't fancy your chances of success, but Ss and I are not unreasonable people. Tim riley (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian's an open minded fellow and I'm working with him on the polar exploration article. I encountered Ssilvers on Carousel (musical) where his hatred of better systems was quite apparent. I believe the article is mostly Wehwalt's work and he's wholeheartedly adopted my approach, but Ssilvers said he would unwatch the article if the improvements were kept. It's a pity when an article has to be left behind. The improvement I made to could be restored; others have tried. Do you see that in the reverts, the fix I made re <ref name= OMO> and the cite by Ruth Smith keeps getting lost? The approach I use improves the robustness, verifiability, and maintainability of referencing. Frankly, named refs are a terrible system; they're very error prone and very inflexible. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Kittens all around ...

Minor4th 06:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

kewl ;) Br'erRabbit 07:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Horsefield clean up[edit]

Hi, and thanks for running Citation bot over John Horsefield. I am curious about the next edit that you made there: you added internal spaces to wrap section headings and you put the names of refs in quotes, both of which are optional (WP:NAMEDREFS and WP:MOSHEAD). Since they are optional, why do it? This is a query, not the beginnings of some sort of argument! - Sitush (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{talk page watcher} Hi, Sitush! I know the answer to one of your questions. The quotation marks, while optional, actually are proper mark-up, though the software will function, sorta, without them. Having quotation marks on all the named citations will prevent false positives on certain kinds of errors when using the ref toolbar to check for citation errors such as multiple definitions of a named reference. For example, the toolbar claims there are multiple definitions of the reference Deut2010/> in the article HIV/AIDS, when the reference is actually called Deut2010, and it is only defined once. So not having the quotation marks confuses this tool. -- Dianna (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dianna's got it re the quotation marks; the help page may say they're optional, but that doesn't make it actually true. The notion of omitting them is a cheat the is fraught with problems. MediaWiki will generate them if they are omitted, but such shortcuts encourage bad habits. It only works with a limited character set and without spaces. If someone adjust a name they can easily get into trouble they don't understand. Better names are to be preferred and ensuring that a page is "well formed" (a term used in various markup language specs) prepares a page for further improvement. I like spaces used liberally because they improve the readability of the wikitext. An exception is in named refs where spaces around the '=' also confuse various tools. user:citation bot, for example, add the quotes and removes spaces around refs it adjusts. Unfortunately, RefToolbar also gets confused when some of the named refs are quoted and some are not. So, I routinely ensure that all named refs are using the quotes as an initial pass on editing pages. It also enables considerably simpler regular expressions when doing subsequent work on a page. The space in the headings are allowed and simply help when reading the wikitext. I also use a blank line before and after for this purpose, but don't add those in the same edit because waiting results in cleaner diffs for other to see. See also: #Trying to get whatever good I can from the bad, where I tried explaining this the other day. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely convinced but will ponder & I'll take a look at the thread that you linked. Some random thoughts:

At its most basic level, it is as easy to have a typo inside quotes as it is to have a typo outside quotes, or to otherwise adjust a name, or to insert or remove a space, and any of these will break something, somewhere
If MetaWiki handles the issue then who really cares about what seems by that definition to be a fairly trivial "bad habits". We have tons of bad habits built right into the policies and guidelines, one of which is our acceptance of a multitude of citation styles in the first instance.
Sure, inconsistencies in data cause problems for analysis, what ever the dataset. But if people really think that they can eliminate inconsistencies and ensure even 25% of the 4m-ish articles here are well-formed then they're in the land that Aristophanes described
If RefToolbar gets confused then fix RefToolbar, or bin it
Any stats regarding how many people use regular expressions to subsequent work on a page? Yes, I know that they can be used with AWB etc and that they form a part of many bots, but as far as I can tell there do not seem to be many people using AWB etc at an advanced level and many of these automated tools themselves can cause a significant number of problems (as you note in the thread below, wrt Citation bot)

On the other hand, you have just introduced Template:efn at Horsefield. I've not seen that one before (it is fairly new, per your edit summary) but it looks good. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ref toolbar doesn't need fixing so that it accepts krappy mark-up. The krappy mark-up is the thing that needs to be fixed.

One way people use regular expressions is by editing with an external editor such as XCode or Notepad++. I always go to my external editor when I want to do search-and-replace, for example.

Part of the reason why we have a multitude of citation styles is because as the wiki has grown and improved, new templates and mark-up have been created. Many articles have not been converted to the more modern citation styles, partly because of a guideline called WP:CITEVAR, which states that if the first primary contributor objects to the upgrade, you have a big donnybrook on your hands trying to implement change. And it's partly because of the other thing you mentioned ... the sheer size of the task. The way I am editing the wiki right now is trying to focus on the most important articles within my area of knowledge and study (Nazi Germany right now, but I also know a lot about the Russian royal family and the court of King Henry VIII), the stuff I perceive to be the core content, ignoring the pop culture and drek. -- Dianna (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All markup languages are moving towards requiring quotation marks on such things; it's called "well formed" in the w3c specs. It is that retarded help page that needs fixing. Just because a shortcut is available, does not mean that it is wise to take it. Ask the Donner Party. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well, i'm glad to learn this. I started leaving them out because I saw so many without them, I figured why bother! But there's a reason! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not getting into a row about this. My comments were "random thoughts". Hell, I know enough about how coders think etc having been one myself in a previous, much happier life. I do not disagree with the idea that the guidance/help page may need changing - so propose that thing. I am not familiar with the ins- and outs- of the wiki sofware to take it forward, but plenty are. As things stand, and MT's comment elucidates so well, if you want to change current practice then you need to hit the core problem. And the core problem seems to be the "optional" word. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Br'er Patch[edit]

Look at all the red. Interesting topic though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just because of all the "ref" tools/scripts I've installed .. but that WHOLE reference section is almost SOLID red .. wow. — Ched : ? 12:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why I brought it here. Mr. Rabbit has an almost supernatural skill in fixing these... lava fields. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about Richard Buxton, another lava field? I need to know how to fix these myself! MathewTownsend (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What script is picking it up, MT? - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 - I think it's this one importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); It's in my custom.js. There's a whole bunch of useful scripts that someone recommended. They're worth installing. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 - Ah, I tried that one for a while. It became a bloody nuisance <g> Just check the Buxton article now, if you have the time. I may have resolved the issue. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 - hey, you did fix the Buxton article. The script can be a nuisance, but for me its very helpful in reviewing. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nb: there's also:

importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors2.js');

which is a variant that cuts down on some the false positives; it gets confused cuts down on some true positives, so take care. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NVM, Pablo got it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The citations in the bibliography were missing the "ref=harv" parameter. pablo 15:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some things to know.

The items in the bibliography have to specify the ref=harv parameter. The {{citation}} template automatically includes the ref=harv parameter.
The {sfn} template has to correctly specify the author name(s) and the year of the work (all must be spelled correctly; diacritics must match). For multiple authors, all must be placed in the template. Little errors such as p-11 for p=11 will cause breakage. The year specified must be the edition cited, not the original year, if that information appears in the citation.
If there are tons of authors or no authors or the publication year is not known or you want something other than author and year, the {{sfnRef}} can be used in the down-below, and {sfn} in the up-above. Examples: {{sfnRef|Simonelli Rossier et al.|2000}} in the bibliography and {{sfn|Simonelli Rossier et al.|2000}} in the article; {{sfnRef|Posen speech (1943), transcript}} in the bibliography and {{sfn|Posen speech (1943), transcript}} in the article. Using {sfnRef} in the article breaks things.
An unusual situation arises when there's multiple works cited by the same author in the same year. One solution is to place the book name in the {sfnRef template}. But putting it in italics breaks the template (but only in the {sfnRef}; the {sfn} is italicized the usual way), so we have to do "italics the hard way": {{sfnRef|Shackleton, .27.27South.27.27}} in the down-below, and {{sfn|Shackleton, ''South'' | loc=preface | pp=xii–xv}} in the up-above.
There's probably more things you need to know. -- Dianna (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just ran into number 4 on Marshall Applewhite, it works Ok once you get it down. On William S. Sadler I had a similar situation as number 3, several news articles didn't have an author specified so I just used the paper name and date. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a handy tip sheet,Dianna.

I've just begun trying to assist a new user - User:Rayabhari - with the basics, including using {{cite book}} etc. I don't think that I will point them to this discussion just yet! Oh, and if you should wander over there and wonder why I have note mentioned the citation toolbar, well, that is the next trick up my sleeve. After I've had a go myself (60k edits, and I've never ever used it). - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly papers and article names go in quotation marks, which don't break the templates. @Sitush: another handy tool is the Citation Bot, but be careful; each change has to be reviewed carefully as not all are helpful and some are the opposite of helpful :( -- Dianna (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:REFTOOLBAR gets tripped-up my a lack of quotation marks (as above). Likewise, it is best to do some initial clean up of gross errors before throwing citation bot and various toolserver toys at a page. They're just tools, they require proper understanding of their use. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that toolbar also the widget that malformats the page parameter and some other weird stuff. Or is that the GBooks thing at AppSpot? - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen behaviour such as you describe. Mostly I use the diagnostic features of RefToolbar. I use http://reftag.appspot.com/ some, but not a lot. I mostly just edit and check my work. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll test run the two of them later. One or the other produces something like "pages 428—" when the user appears to be referring to just page 428. There was at least one other blip but it has escaped my memory right now. - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Featured article request for Killer7[edit]

I fixed the ref issue. Nice catch! Axem Titanium (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did I address all your objections to having the article featured on the main page? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I'd really appreciate a response at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#July 7 to confirm that the fix has been made. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nag much? Don't be a pest; if you've fixed it, fine. It's just a video game. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's in my best interest, as nominator, to ensure all opposition has been addressed. If it takes three talk page messages over 24 hours to elicit some kind of acknowledgment, I'll do it. So thanks for acknowledging my existence. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful what you ask for. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly out of touch[edit]

Ah, Br'er, I'm having trouble with my email, Cox seems to be having trouble. Will catch up anything of importance when I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Create another account ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't verify right now. But when I get home I think I'm going to switch over to gmail. Then I can bundle my services with Verizon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You first create a throw-away yahoo account to use to verify the gmail account. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Manfred von Richthofen (general)[edit]

On 27 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Manfred von Richthofen (general), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that General Manfred von Richthofen, like the air ace who was named after him and was his great-nephew, was awarded the "Blue Max" for his service in World War I? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Manfred von Richthofen (General). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's now also featured on Portal:Germany! If you have other DYK related to Germany, feel free to place it there yourself. He made it to the stats, more to come! - this is my standard message ;) - Your help made quite a difference for the first DYK of a first biography of a user, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guten morgen. Sie sind herzlich willkommen. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen toxicity[edit]

Thank you for your Herculean efforts in cleaning and tidying references at Oxygen toxicity. At least my penchant for naming references by author/year/page might have reduced the pain of updating to shortened footnotes. You're right of course about citing the authors of the chapters, rather than Brubakk & Neumann (eds), although it does feel a bit like citing Isaiah instead of the King James Bible!

I'm still trying to find the motivation to bring Decompression sickness to FAC, but at least your cleanup there leaves one less task. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. That's about it for this pass on oxygen toxicity. I see some things "asking" on decompression sickness. Will have a go at it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - I had a little pass at that, yonks ago, and it has been on my to-do list ever since, unfortunately very little off that list gets done! Top job. pablo 19:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was an interesting read. I did work on decompression sickness, too. Best, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

God, that picture of a dog on your userpage is gross. Did you take that? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Pets are a luxury most cultures can't afford. There are about a million feral dogs in Bali. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess dogs in the US have it pretty good. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+options, like cataract surgery, transplants… meanwhile animals and people are starving, elsewhere. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And with children as well - it's not a raw wealth problem, it's a distribution problem. Among other things. (big sigh) Montanabw^(talk) 19:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another template question[edit]

So I noticed that you changed {{reflist}} to {{refs}} here. What is the reasoning behind that? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT. It's just a redirect that harmonises well with |ref= used in WP:LDR. There's also {{notes}} and |notes=. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess I'll go with it, shorter and all. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AWB drones mindlessly "fix" it, though. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today[edit]

... is a good day ;) thank you for your precious help to the German equivalent going, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Gerda. Thank you, for pushing it the rest of the way for the same day. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the applause (the word was used by the German editor who so far translated from en), - but I commented about 2/3 ;) - good enough for Schon gewusst, then we will see. Without your ref help, I could not have done it! - returning from gorgeous fireworks, Rheingau Musik Festival 25 (thanks for help there also!), a fitting conclusion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

back to normal: more thanks for the fast "visibility" of the Bach cantata table! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of WP:Featured Article Candidates for Deletion[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates for Deletion, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates for Deletion and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates for Deletion during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dick-move, sven. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox link template[edit]

You removed {{navbox link}} from Rwanda because you found it "unhelpful." This characterization is no doubt correct as to yourself, an experienced Wikipedia editor. However, casual readers do not share your level of expertise and may never even think to check the end of an article for Easter eggs. And the recent trends toward putting multiple navboxes within a shell (see Andrew Luck#External links for an example) and adding surveys that separate navboxes from the end of articles makes it even more likely that an unsophisticated reader will miss navbox information altogether. Please take a fresh look at the navbox link template with these concerns in mind. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I did. This clunky box and anchor are quite unwarranted. Navboxes are quite well understood by readers of the site; there are millions of them (and the article feedback toy goes under navboxes).

Reviewing your recent article edits, this is pretty much all you've been doing for the last few months. There is no CONSENSUS for this, no mention at SEEALSO. I'd strongly suggest you seek a consensus before you continue to muddy-up articles with this. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I want you to know that I have not added the template to an article since I saw your reversal. (I also stopped when Moxy raised some concerns. As you may note, he how backs the idea.) That said, I'd like to follow up on your concerns. However, you have now raised them on three separate pages. On which page would you prefer we continue our discussion? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just said that WT:FAC seems to have the most traction, so focus there. Nothing definitive gonna be decided here. I will continue to remove egregious examples of this; that's how WP:BRD works; you made poor BOLD edits and they're getting reverted. You want this thing; get a consensus for it. I'm seeing a lot more against than for it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O.k., see you there. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Years longer[edit]

Never doubted it. ;) I appreciated the links, by the way. Very informative. Creation of templates and such are not my strong suit, as you may have guessed, but I like knowing the history. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothin' like having been there for knowing history. I used to carve code in wood with chisels and have close encounters with writing it with a stick dipped in dino splat. Not bad for a twelve year old. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you youngsters remember whom you got the dino splat from. --T-RexxS (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that was your line ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax Gibbet[edit]

Thanks for doing the {{sfn}} stuff. I'm definitely a convert now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you

Like. Suggest another, and I'll get on it. I've been doing an awful lot of battleships, and some variety is good. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was about making the cite match the {sfn}s; so the all end with the full stop (I could care less about the damn things; these idiosyncrasies are mere noise). The rest was about readability, really. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh ...[edit]

I could have emailed .. but wanted to say publicly ... Thank you - greatly appreciated. (As is all the help you've given me in so many things). — Ched : ? 13:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome, Ched. Have a wiki-beer on me. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Citation Barnstar
	For being awesome and introducing me to the wonders of {{sfn}}! I really appreciate your modernization of the FA/GAC constellation articles. Thank you so very much. Keilana\|^{Parlez ici} 16:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. I FA-tagged one of them for you, too. The one at GAN need some fixed; I left a note about it, there. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cite and ce work[edit]

I have noted that you have been "hopping" around doing a lot of good cite and ce work. If you are interested (and have the time), here are a few for consideration which need some work: Wehrmacht and National Socialism, Einsatzgruppen, Nazism, Nazi Party, Waffen-SS. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted them and will have a look when things are a little calmer. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good work therein. Kierzek (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Popcorn[edit]

LOL. Sorry about removing it, although I'm still laughing at your edit summary.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That whole thread amounts to ANI-santorum (neologism), aka as fur shite wiki-drama. I should have one of my arbpuppets banhammer the lot in that thread, the prior Mally one, and the arb page. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbcom stuff, which is what triggered it, is too much drama, I agree, but the multiple account issue is more important, at least to me. Thanks for catching my word/page error. I've fixed it, although I don't think Alexandr is going to clarify. I don't suppose you have an opinion on that little side issue? You could always buy a box of candy to go with the popcorn to fortify yourself before you respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts? Meh; not big thing, really ;) Ever have gmail mind it? Really, you can ignore all teh rulz if you're right. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albertus Soegijapranata[edit]

Could you figure out a way to use SFN with the Gmaps citations there? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, your talk page could use some archiving. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Worked first try, too. {{wikicite}} lets you reference anything with an {{sfn}}. re archiving; I'm more inclined to clearing. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I'll have to remember that if I get confused. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

You can tell me to fuck off if you want, but in the interests of peace and reconcillation, I'd be inclined to put down the hammers. And because I have the neck of the devil, I'm going to ask you for help with Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych; a failed FAC that Im intending to take back in a week or two. Can you give it a once over please for correctness; Im not the greatest with templates and mark up, and I'd appreciate it a lot. I do respect a lot of what you do around here, and Im not one for bearing grudges. At the end of the day, to use a dreadful football phrase, we are all on the same side. Where is the love, and all that shit. Ceoil (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fuck off. Been wanting to be able to say that. I'll work on that article, tomorrow. At first glance, ISBN 0-1708-2025-3 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum is invalid and need looking up. Did a few quick fixes, just now. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you too, very much. But thanks as well. When it comes to ISBN, I dont know what the hell Im talking about. Frankly. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try ISBN 1-78022-025-1. It's valid. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have that book, here in my hand. Maybe I'm thicker than I thought. Ceoil (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Sorry for butting in here, but this↑ is Wikipedia at its best. Oh and by the way, I'm opening a WQA on both of you fuckers; civility is a policy. Think of the children! pablo 19:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ch. 5: Beast from Water

"You want a pig," said Roger, "like in a real hunt."

"Or someone to pretend," said Jack. "You could get someone to dress up as a pig and then he could act — you know, pretend to knock me over and all that —"

"You want a real pig," said Robert, still caressing his rump, "because you've got to kill him."

"Use a littlun," said Jack, and everybody laughed.

;): Jack

<Rubbs hands> Excellent, my trap worked, you said both bastard and rump. Prepare to be annihilated. Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Flies

by William Golding

“Aren’t there any grownups at all?”

“I don’t think so.”

The fair boy said this solemnly; but then the delight of a realized ambition overcame him. In the middle of the scar he stood on his head and grinned at the reversed fat boy.

“No grownups!”

Ch. 1: The Sound of the Shell

/cunt/ ;)

Is cunt the worst one you know? I know about three better that that, but they are a secret, between me and my priest. You'll have to try a lot harder than that to offend me. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

don't doubt that I could. you can't tell what you and your priest did, or you'll go to hell. didn't he tell you that? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He did mention something along those lines - something about "our secret" and my eternal damnation. I forget exactly. But he gave me sweets. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it was sweet? must be his diet. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:X :D Kafka Liz (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was hard, I remember that. And from regrission theraphy I understand it was what you humans call sweet. Yeah fuck it. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for fixing my screwups[edit]

thanks for your fixes on Talk:French battleship Charlemagne/GA1, and here.

I'm studying what you're doing so (hopefully) I can look for and fix these things myself. Incompetence on my part.

(I see you're a wonder at css.)

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just searched and found that destroyer. Most of what I did in there is shift to best practise wiki markup. But, ok, I do have local copies of things like the CSS specs. You want to learn tricks? Figure out my user page(s). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I've looked at your user page. I learned some css a few years ago and really had fun with it. I have the css specs on a old computer, but could download them on this one. But you are on another level.

I've tried to figure out some things, like how you did everything upside down!

Would you be willing to start up a tutorial program? Also one for the footnotes you advocate. Please understand how clueless some of us are. We can write and copy edit, put presentation is becoming increasingly important. Show me the way! (I have Eric Meyer's books and done his exercises.) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSS is not that complex, but using it effectively requires understanding of page structure. It's a pity that only basic css is in the site style sheets; much could be done there that can not be done with inline css (which is generally a poor practise). Things like the user pages are a hybrid of wiki-text, html, and css, with a few parser function in it.

I teach by example. If I get better referencing mechanism in place on articles others then use as examples for their work, then they've learned from me. See the recent editing of Paul McCartney; fellow learned a few things and dropped me wiki-bling. Meyer's books are good. You might also pick up Cederholm's, and bookmark alistapart.com. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

okay, so

this makes things upside down?

trying it here. . . . See!

Can't get it in the right place (the upside down part). I wanted "this makes things upside down?" to be lower down.

Would be great if you set up an "examples" section, a learning page showing what can be done ... beginning easy! I've never even seen -webkit-transform: before. I'll take your suggestion and get the Cederholm book. Had forgotten about alistapart.com but will do that too!

Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which Dan Cederholm book are you recommending? Amazon.com has three. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sfn and collected works[edit]

Hi Br'er, I've been tinkering with {{sfn}}. It might be a gee-whiz template but the documentation is horrendous and I could do with some advice, if you are willing.

Assume a citation that is {{citation |title=booktitle |editor-first=firstZ |editor-last=lastZ |first=firstY |last=lastY |chapter=chaptertitle ...}}. Can you advise of the best approach to take when I want to cite page X by author Y, when the page forms a contributed chapter to the book edited by Z ? If I say {{sfn|Z|year|X}} then the author/chapter title isn't cited; if I say {{sfn|Y|year|X}} then the editor/book is not cited. I could also be citing other pages in other chapters written by other people in the same book. Apologies for the algebraic notation; feel free to insert apples/oranges, Smith/Brown or whatever takes your fancy. - Sitush (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking you want to use Y|year|p=123 and cite the author. The full details will be in the bibliography. here and here, for example. If you want more control over the actual footnote text, use |ref= with an {{sfnRef}}. Typically this is for omitting the year, but you can do most anything with it, really. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. I've tweaked stuff accordingly at User:Sitush/Sandbox2, although it will be some time before that draft sees mainspace. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for the great help and advice! The Paul McCartney FAC was successful! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk\|contribs)} 22:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cross of Gold article[edit]

I was wondering, why did you undo my edit at Cross of Gold with the edit summary "not in lede"? The lead in an article has to cite sources as well, so what's wrong with adding a "by whom" tag next to the claim that was lacking a source/attribution? TheSameGuy (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the lead doesn't have to cite sources if the statements are sourced in the article body (and since all information in the lead has to be in the body it has to be).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Maunus is right. refs and that tag are not appropriate for the lede. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well hold on, I thought refs and tags are appropriate for the lead too? Even WP:LEADCITE mentions that "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies." in the first sentence. But, Manus is correct that if the content from the lead shows up in the body and is sourced there, then the content doesn't need to be referenced/sourced in the lead. After reading through the article again, I realized the same thing is mentioned in the first sentence of the "Legacy" section and is referenced there, so the lead doesn't need to contain a source in this case. TheSameGuy (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

which is why my removal was correct. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, anyways thanks for the help guys. TheSameGuy (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: fcite usage[edit]

Ah okay. Thanks for the heads up. I'm fairly new here and I saw people putting fcite on major pages, so I figured there'd been some consensus hammered out behind the scenes somewhere already. Guess it's still in progress. Cheers, quant18 (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the author wrote a few essays, and a post on Jimmy's page and then ran with this. The wide deployment is covered by Wikipedia:Fait accompli. Thanks for understanding. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

request consultation[edit]

regarding "Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation"

Hi,

In Ice trade it appears that nothing is connected up? Is this something I can fix? Or is it ok and those red errors don't count?

Thanks for any time you spend on this, even if only one second.

MathewTownsend (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those amount to false positives. The full citations are setup to be linked to, but the prose hasn't been set to do so; it's still old-school. Seems a reasonable article, otherwise. If you start {{sfn}}'ng it, I help along the way. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I like the article. I don't want to mess with the citations if they aren't in error because it's been nominated for GA review. I was thinking of doing the review and don't want to upset the nominator by barging in. Besides, I don't know how to {{sfn}}'ng it. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but now I notice that the article was created in one 83,000 kB chunk. Last time I got involved in an article created that way it turned out to have quite a bit of copyvio/plagiarism in it. So ... MathewTownsend (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bal des Ardents[edit]

Thanks for the tweaks there. I wouldn't have known it was scheduled for TFA w/out your edits. I've slightly tweaked the tweaks - I like to separate out the direct quotes into a discrete page number - but feel free to tweak again if I've made mistakes. Don't know how much I'll be around in the next few days to tend this, so again, thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I noticed the protection. It is best to cite quotes to a discrete page; I don't have the source and fixed the duplicate named ref by just using the max range (since it was narrow and the two definitions overlapped). I did look again and didn't find any structural problems. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia portal again[edit]

Can you find a way to make the topics box collapsible? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

looking. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tried for like 8 hours last month then gave up. You, on the other hand, eat and breathe template code, so if its possible you should be able to do it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome. Can it go on the bottom right? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, I just reverted it. It's not proper collapsing. It should be in {{box-header}} but it's unsupported. You could seek a change or maybe ask Cirt teh P:FP director. Feel free to revert me if you want that back. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with that? A partial collapse is okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just put it back; properly supported it would be in the top-left. But other things put it top-right, while this thing has edit there... wiki-chaos in action. All this portal infrastructure is very old and probably not much maintained. I go months without visiting portals. They're a nineties paradigm. Remember when netscape re-purposed their home page as a 'portal' (no, you probably don't;). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My parents stuck with IE (although yes, I remember the heydays of Napster and whatnot, think I first got on the internet around 1997) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work on the Ice trade...[edit]

...looks much better! Hchc2009 (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad you're taking it in the wrong direction. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh no! I think the article is really good. Am I wrong?? In fact it's so good, it seems professionally written. (Not to say that's bad. Just such a relief to come across an actual well written article!) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

greater help needed[edit]

Hi,

I've been trying to fix William Thompson (Medal of Honor, 1950) and I've tried to figure out what's wrong per {{sfn}} and {{sfnm}} but I can't figure it out. It seems the problem is in the footnote, but it looks ok to me. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spilling the arthurs name wright helps. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you're kidding! I checked and checked. JHC, I'm no good. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That what other eyes are for. I checked the markup first, and it was right; so what's next? teh data. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you're teaching me to be competent. Needed badly by me! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's experience building. The harv-linking mechanism serves as a diagnostic on citations. if things aren't linking, it means something is wrong. A mistake I see regularly is last/first in the wrong fields. It is usually for names where either reading seems reasonable. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage idea[edit]

Hi Br'er - is it possible to build a userpage that cycles randomly between a selection of quotes? Either selecting a new each time the page loads, or switching the quote at a given interval.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like mine does? It cycles between a lot of multiple designs and the main one has further cycles, such as various quotes. A simpler example is at:

User:Jack Merridew/Quote switch — used by this talk's edit notice, for example

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) or this with a motto of the day? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure whether yours cycled or you just changed it very frequently. :) But yes. Thanks for those hints.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ON your Lord of the Flies quote switch, what determines which quote is displayed? Is it a time based cycle?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's keying off NUMBEROFEDITS (1216667256) which ticks along pretty fast. It is essentially random. Most of the other stuff in User:Jack Merridew it ticking-over on days (the overall design) or hours (the quotes). User:Br'er Rabbit is pulling one of a bunch of user pages, including Jack's, per timestamp (to just mix things up, more). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

Well, I know nothing about those things. Could you fix them for me? P.S.: Good to hear from you again, where have you been? --Lecen (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It goes like in Pedro II of Brazil#Endnotes; {{efn}} is very handy Short-simple notes should be right inline and talkier ones and messier one should be dropped into the notes section. I'll be right on it. I've been around; busy, I guess. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done You should rename them to something meaningful and fill in whatever. Use {{harv}} or {{harvnb}} in there if you are sourcing something. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is SPI out of control?[edit]

I didn't ask for any part of this. Do you know these jerks? I have about had it with this place, seems like all of the good content contributors have left. Bred Ivy (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I "know" of several of them. Bugs and Hipocrite are both seriously net-negatives and should be indef'd. And Tim is certainly on my list of admins who shouldn't be. The Steve account and the DriveBy one I've never seen; you either, although I assume we've met. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've interacted on the Main Space...with my main account (RL name). I started this acct at the beginning of the year so I could comment freely without worrying about RL issues. I was so fed up after the CU was run at SPI, that I couldn't think straight (or type, or spell, I see now). Just came over here to vent, thanks for listening. I knew nothing of how SPI works, so I do what I've learned on the main space, I read the policy, and expected the process to follow it. I guess it would be too much for the Clerk or CU to follow policy, if they've read it. The inmates are running the asylum. Sorry to babble/thanks again for your ear. Bred Ivy (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing question[edit]

What's the best way to cite to a book with different authors for each chapter, yet one editor? Thanks. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite book}} supports that. Have an instance for each chapter, specifying all the details, including |chapter=, and use {{sfn}}. You're citing sources, the authors. That their works were collected into a single book is a detail. If the book is a collection of previously published works, you can simply add (after the {cite book}) "Previously published as ... {{cite journal}} or whatever the case may be. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, you are extremely helpful! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It only works with those who listen. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are wise words indeed. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... you made my day, you two ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Agneta Matthes & Agneta Park[edit]

Hi. Can you provide an additional comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Agneta Matthes & Agneta Park to include a status update for the review? Did it pass or not? Review appears to be incomplete. Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno; I just cropped the image ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laura is doing a great job to remind people of neglected noms, probably addressing every editor whose signature is in the nom. I took care of it and you don't have to follow up, you can delete this ;) a great woman (in case you didn't read it), raising 3 of the 5 children her husband had with another, on top of running a perfume company and creating a garden city for their workers, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I thought Laura was a student in Oz. Busy girl ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 great women here, sorry if I confused you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just messing with ya ... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Foraker[edit]

Hey Br'er, I tried adding a nickname for Foraker to the infobox but it comes out under the military service part. Is there any way to change that so it doesn't?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like this. You can do up to five custom fields. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Hello. Is this the former User:Jack Merridew? You previously lent me an olive branch after my sockpuppet ban a few years ago and I'd like to admit to the following. The files below are of false rights usage. Of the ones I claimed to own myself - I did not. They where from random webpages elsewhere.

[3]
[4]

The ones were permission was given from elsewhere were uploaded in good faith, but in fact were taken from different forums, websites or even screenshots from TV and are not the property of the uploaders.

[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]

I also have no recollection of uploading this image [9]. I hope these files can be speedily deleted. 90.203.39.47 (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is I; I've dropped this for the littluns at WP:Great Dismal Swamp. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...[edit]

... for the history lesson. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's all the same wiki-dramah, year after year. You do see that I certified the RfC/U re Ash, right? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Hand-ball"?[edit]

You "hand-balled" a problem off to WP:ANI? Sounds like you've been hanging out with too many Australians. I try to avoid them at all costs. And I am one.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little aerial pingpong lingo never hurt anyone ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demm you, ~~Merridew~~ Br'er Rabbit. I was hoping you would talk down to me and mention that I hadn't even been anywhere near a GA or FA in 6+ on en.wp years. I had a nasty little riposte and a Shakespeare quote already to go. Spoil my fun, why don't you?--Shirt58 (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

eye haz nice ~~Brad~~ Bard quote over here ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Randy in Stratford-upon-Avon was of course just a simple village boy with a gift for nature poetry and comedic writing. Then he left his wife and moved to London to become an actor and playwright, for a kind of C16 Britain's Got Talent. After the awful Titus Andronicus Marlow pastiche, Marlow himself obviously took Randy in Stratford-upon-Avon under his wing, and employed him to write the comic bits of The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus. The collaboration prospered, resulting in the jointly written final scene in "Faustus". Marlow then faked his death and moved to Italy, and then corresponded with the ~~Brad~~ Bard to co-write most of the corpus of works conventionally attributed solely to Shakespeare. It's so obvious. There is also the possibility that I am barking mad Shakespeare authorship question total lunatic. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does an ant eat an elephant?[edit]

So here's another possible meal. Serendipodous has nominated the list Timeline of the far future for FLC. It's a fun piece of work and well-referenced from diverse sources - somewhat unusual for a list. A couple of us have suggested that the tables could be de-snotted by LDR, but Serendipodous is uncertain about them. Would you have a quick look at the nomination and the list to see if you would agree with my recommendation? Any time you have would be appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I took a few bites. De-snotting the refs would be good. I did some clean up; 50ish of them need names. I'll look at the FLC and comment there. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User page[edit]

Looking at you extraordinary user page, I think you may want to quote Whitman: "I am large. I contain multitudes." Thank you for the design on top of mine, designed for a different purpose, now proclaiming Rhapsody in Blue! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should revisit the quotes. Probably not Jack's, but a next batch. There are some designs I'll probably cut and I'm thinking I need some new ones. And some of the ankle bitters don't have much for pages, as yet. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnah[edit]

Hi Br'er Rabbit,
I was hoping that you could guide me on somethings on the Jinnah article. I was planning to take it to a FA status and was being guided by User:Wehwalt. He said that you are his technical guru so it's better to take an opinion from you on the article. There are some problems that I am facing and have also raised these concerns on the talk page but they are yet to to be resolved. One of the major concern being that some facts are mentioned in the article without any references. So, should I just remove them or wait for someone to come up with some references because I have personally visited libraries for finding reliable sources but I haven't found any.
So if you could guide me on this issue and on the article as a whole, I'll be really grateful to you.
Thanks
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 11:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'll have a look at the article. You should listen to Wehwalt, he's one of our best. As he has said, I do technical work; structure, markup, ref mechanisms and such. If you're heading towards The House of FA, you're going to have to have sources for all significant facts offered in the article; if finding reliable sources for some of them is proving fruitless, then they will need to come out of the article. Things will still be in the history, so you can always recover cut bits if you find sources. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah he is undoubtedly one of the best editors I have seen since I started working on Wikipedia. I was also planning on doing the same but was a bit confused whether to remove them or not as this is my first time to work on an article and get it a FA status. If there is any more advice that you would like to give me regarding this article, I'll be happy to take it :)
Thanks!!!
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 09:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a start of cleaning things up. You should take a stab at removing what you believe to be both unsourced and unsourceable. I"ll keep an eye on the page and comment in any talk. I see more todo, and will give things another edit. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will start removing unsourced material from the article. Will be needing all the help I can get from experienced editors.
Thanks!!!
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 11:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all the unsourced material from the article and have also placed them separately on the talk page so that one can easily see what sentences I have removed and if someone is having any RS, he can add them back.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 10:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a poser[edit]

Noticed this while playing around with Zotero last night: COinS metadata production from the "cite" family of templates is broken in an interesting way. The templates generate the metadata directly from their parameters...but the parameters are unparsed wikitext, so bracketed wikilinks and HTML entities just get sucked right through into the metadata without parsing. I can't see how to fix the problem in the general sense; is a Scribunto-based solution likely to facilitate curing this? Choess (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lua (programming language) is just that, a proper programming language as opposed to the preprocessor and limited parser functions that currently implement the template namespace, so this sort of thing should be able to be dealt with in that scheme of things. Best to run this by User:TheDJ. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

I really appreciated this edit. The article was getting impossible to navigate.

Happy editing, hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 09:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there's a bit yet to do. such articles are a pain to edit as everyone is editing it at the same time. Tip: naming the refs helps the de-clutter process. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war over UTC vs MDT (on 2012 Aurora Shooting)[edit]

You and United States Man have reverted each other repeatedly over this. Can you please discuss on the talk page, or with each other? – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the template doc; he's simply wrong. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me why I'm wrong. I do lots of work on tornadoes and hurricanes and this is how it's always done. United States Man (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template has a timezone field; that's where this information goes. It's proper structure. I added your MDT, which 95% of the world does not understand. You should see if whatever infoboxes you're using on those articles have a |timezone= and use it (if not, add it). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see that template. United States Man (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's right there at the top of the article. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I see is the infobox. United States Man (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the infobox is the template. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you can move this to a Talk page. United States Man (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is a talk page. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit]

Why did you undo my edit? You didn't explain in the summary. You treated it like vandalism. 166.195.240.77 (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you moved the merge template to the wrong spot, in fact it was already in the wrong spot; the go at the top spanning the infobox, too. That page is moving fast, so things get terse. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that the wrong spot? It's meant to go either at the top of the page or the top of the relevant section when there is one. That's why it says 'It has been suggested that James Eagan Holmes be merged into this article or section.' I moved it to the section about James Eagan Holmes. 166.195.240.77 (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger: "add the appropriate merger template to the very top of the destination page"

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your silly fish[edit]

It's not my fault you'd rather engage in edit wars than discuss why your "correct version" is correct. I don't care what style it is, just that people aren't edit warring over it. I do care that you've taken "ownership" over the time, to the point of reverting stuff that's just "not in the right format" (whatever that is, you haven't provided any links to what time "should" look like on an article), even when it's a factual correction. Maybe try fixing it to the right format instead of just reverting a whole edit? Maybe try explaining why your version is correct, instead of just spamming my talk page? – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 08:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should have a little more respect for doing things properly. You've made the fucking page look stupid with duplicate dates; twice. Go read the documentation and get a clue. Happy editing. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem doing things properly. I'm sorry I haven't read tomes of Wikipedia documentation, which you refuse to link to to explain your point, instead telling me to "get a clue" and assuming all editors know what the "correct format" for dates is. Of course the page looks stupid with duplicate dates. That's why I said *edit it and fix it*. It looks even MORE stupid when you have a single start date, then a date range right below that. I don't care which one you use. Use a start time, use a range, but don't use both. That's even more stupid that duplicating it, which is why I changed it (and was hoping *you* would edit it to a proper format, whatever the hell that is; maybe I'd know if you pointed me to it.) You do realize there are other editors on Wikipedia, right? – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't introduce the endtime, I believe I just shifted it to using the proper template parameter. You do realise the template has documentation, right? Tells how to use it, what the parameters are, what utility templates to use? See {{Infobox civilian attack/doc}}. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you did, but it's irrelevant since it was there; adding the 24-hour start time with the 12-hour time range below it was incorrect due to that. I've read the documentation, I still don't know what the right way is to display both 12 and 24-hour time AND use the template...since the template doesn't allow for 12-hour time, but there was reasonable consensus to use 12-hour time since the incident occurred in the US. Actually, looking at the documentation again, it says that "end time" is for a series of attacks, so we probably shouldn't even use that. The correct thing seems to be to keep it without the end time at all. (Which is fine with me.) In any case, you really need to discuss things with editors rather than just reverting with ambiguous messages that explain nothing, when you're obviously editwarring. You could try leaving helpful change messages rather than assuming people have all committed WP:* and MOS:* to memory; not just me, but you did it over the exact same issue a day ago, obviously. (I have to wonder if the two of you would've just kept reverting each other all night, since neither of you seemed to care to make initial contact with the other...consider what a waste of time doing that is, versus discussing the issue. Unless your goal is just to "win" the edit war.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merely you opinion. I'm not edit warring, I'm fixing an article that the puling masses of inexperienced editors keep fucking up. I'm generally considered a helpful user and have been for many years. Too many here want to 'discuss' instead of doing things properly (it why the place is considered an argument nexus). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with notes in Pedro I of Brazil[edit]

I think I did something wrong back there, because an error message keeps showing up. Could you fix it, please? --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REFNEST. mw:cite.php does not support ref-tags inside regf tags, and that's what sfn inside efn inside notes are. It will fail the same using ref tags. This is what harvnb and harv are good for. You may want to fuss with the flow of things, now, but it works this way. There's an alternative: inline efn with sfn in them. That's messy, though. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did somethign wrong there when I added "note C". Could you tell me what? --Lecen (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

missing '}' ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, heah... thanks! :) --Lecen (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

translation

Just now saw the page in question. And I didn't know that, actually. Is there something that I should be reading into this? - jc37 20:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a username vio. Generally, the 'magic' referred to is Black magic, not Glinda's. That troll indef'd, yet? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One stop shopping...(like a drive thru McDonalds...)[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:The Core Contest#August contest - do you think it makes sense to have a one-stop page as Johnbod suggests? If so, your formatting and presentation leaves mine for dead.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

probably should be split off. nb: it's all star-collecting. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you do ref collecting... or fixing. You want a nightmare? Here — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing I didn't watchlist that. Poor ref work, indeed, and by a sysop. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is a sysop? No wonder Malleus opposes nominations for people who haven't done content work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you do use wp:popups, right? Enable in prefs, advanced settings in .js ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried, didn't like it (that was about 6 months ago). Slow connection speed may be a factor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for backing my decision on Talk:Ngo Dinh Diem and for cleaning up my Talk page in the aftermath. It seems like a bit of a gray area. Make an unsourced, negative statement about a not so recently dead person on a Talk page but phrase it as a question (or use the question as a heading, as in this case), and it's not so obvious how to justify removing it. Meters (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was trolling; obvious trolling is obvious, so just revert it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol, good one. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A class="plainlinks" in a span would make the red hover:underline go away, too ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, Jack *chuckle* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YGM[edit]

Hello, Br'er Rabbit. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

thread for you[edit]

it seems like the next step for the parameter is a discussion on the template talk page (started here). if visible "via" is eliminated, then the HighBeam template would go back to just acting like "subscription required". it could even be redirected, which would allow one to track which ones were for HighBeam. although a simple external like search for highbeam would also do that. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting on the Clitoris article — thank you[edit]

Thank you for helping out with this article in preparation for it achieving WP:GA status. I take it that you saw this and then this discussion, the latter of which shows an editor recommending you for the reference-formatting job? I truly didn't know what to do about the partially-bundled formatting and whatever other type of inconsistent reference formatting after Malleus Fatuorum quit working on the article. I see that you undid his bundling job, but he seems to believe that bundling is better because it takes away from "citation clutter" and therefore makes the article more readable. Either way, I appreciate your help. I would say that the downside to the article's new reference format that you two added (but especially your version) is that I or others will have to click on the References tab at the bottom of the article to gather the full format of any reference. For example, sometimes a less experienced editor will transport -- copy and paste -- text and references from one article to the next using only the ref names. I've had to correct editors on this before and inform them that, "When moving references from one article to another, it's a matter of checking to see if the references you are moving are complete references and not just refnames. For what I mean about that, see Wikipedia:NAMEDREFS#Multiple references to the same footnote. Bringing over the refname in absence of the source in its entirety leaves the reference invalid." So I can only imagine how confused such editors will be in trying to locate the complete reference(s) in this article or those that are formatted like it reference-wise. But like I stated, I do appreciate your help.

Also, do you mind fixing the Irvine reference? The format in the lead says p. 2023, but it should say p. 37-38. As you can see in that link, I've also used a different format for it at other parts of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that you fixed most of the Irvine formatting a little before I left the above message on your talk page. Thank you. The lead still currently says p. 2023, though. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're just too quick for me, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the "too quick" link, you stated, "don't put page specific urls in the biblio, it's for all refs; page specific urls should be associated with the specific footnotes." But I'm a little confused on the matter. I did that because there are currently some other page-specific urls in that section, and, since the Roughgarden source is mostly citing Page 38, it seems better that the reader can be directed right to the page to verify the statements. Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see that you made the specific url page numbers available in the References section. Thank you again. I'd still like your take on my initial post above about reference formatting, though. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really should not (edit conflict) the shite out of editors on their own talk page when they are trying to reply to you.

I saw the talk on Mark's page; looked at some of the other. The 2023 was some copypaste mistake; meh. The biblio items should not have urls that are page specific. Multiple footnotes will end up pointing at them regarding varying page numbers. The sources are the published works, not Google. The urls are a mere extra for spot checks. And gBook links are capricious; they come and go, availability varies by region. They're just gBait to profile people.

The bundling with {{sfnm}} is usually not good; it fights with the regular {{sfn}} for collating and the syntax is from hell. Much of what Mally meant was to get the citation details out of the prose and down to the biblo; a few repeated footnotes inline is not a lot of clutter. Inexperienced editors do dumb shite all the time; you have to change their diapers and wash them up. That's not a reason to not use the best techniques. Once an article seeks to sport bling, it needs to level up and (pun) fly right.

The {{r}} and {{harvnb}}s I put in the LDR work, but are a bit of bother. It's perfectly adequate to cite the book/page and mebbe offer a gLink to the whole book. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about editblocking you that way. I figured that I might have done so, with the way I kept replying. And, wow, you really know a lot about referencing on Wikipedia. You even tweaked the links in my initial post above, LOL. I feel like such a reference amature compared to you and Malleus. Although I also know personal preference factors into some reference formatting, this has been a good learning experience with regard to the referencing topic. As for Malleus's bundling, he generally prefers not to source the lead if what is in the lead is sourced lower in the article. But I pointed out that "whether or not to include citations in the lead is a case-by-case matter, usually a personal choice, and I feel that such a contentious topic as this should have a well-sourced lead. For years on this site, I've seen enough editors add citation tags for things that are clearly cited lower in the article, and I'd rather not have to worry about that with this article or any article I have heavily edited." And so that's how the bundling formatting started on the article, although he does seem to feel that having a line backed to two or more, or maybe just three or more, citations is citation clutter in any regard.

Thanks for the reply. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do references ;) Who do you think sold Mally on {{sfn}}? Choice of referencing mechanism is about what's appropriate for the article at hand and the materials being used to source it. When people impose a personal preference, they're often missing the merits of a better tool. If there are too many inline footnotes, it's usually best to remove the non-primary ones. we haz essay: REFBOMB. Mally's right about the lede; anything said in the lead should be said, and cited, in the body of the article. The lede is an introduction and really should not have cites at all; see CITELEAD (which is wishy-washy;). I'm not really seeing how clitoris is controversial; we have deniers, still? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:CITELEAD that I've based my rationale on for having citations in the lead of this article. That, and like I stated, the experience I mentioned above about not having some areas of the lead sourced.

Yes, the topic of the clitoris is quite controversial. This is explained in the lead, although it currently doesn't use the word "controversial." For example, a lot of people still believe that the vagina is the center of female sexual pleasure and don't know that most women achieve orgasm only through direct clitoral stimulation, and some men and women therefore neglect the clitoris entirely. There is also much controversy over vaginal/G-Spot orgasms because of the history concerning it and scientists of today who don't believe that such orgasms can be technically called "vaginal orgasms." Most scientists these days believe that it's actually stimulation of the clitoris that is causing them because they say that the G-Spot is an extension of the clitoris or that, during sexual intercourse, the vagina cannot be stimulated without stimulating the clitoris because of the anatomical relationship between them. But there are still those scientists who argue for the G-Spot being a distinct entity. Not to mention, the media promoting the G-Spot...even though its existence has never been scientifically proven. And then there's the controversy over genital modification such as clitoris enlargement, clitoris piercing, and clitoridectomy, but especially clitoridectomy, and the general public's knowledge of the clitoris significantly trailing behind that of other sexual organs; most middle and high schools don't discuss the clitoris as much as other sexual organs (likely because it's not thought of as being necessary for reproduction), and some classes that should discuss it never even address the subject. Yep, it's quite controversial indeed. Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Street-legal sockpuppet"[edit]

Why are you marking your RfA and RfB !votes In this manner? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the point of this ridiculous code for a signature:

[[user:Br'er Rabbit|'''Br'er''']][[user talk:Br'er Rabbit|{{color|white|'''Rabbit'''}}]] 01:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC) ← [[Street-legal vehicle|Street-Legal]] [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|Sockpuppet]]. — [[User:Br'er Rabbit|Br'er Rabbit]] ([[User talk:Br'er Rabbit|talk]]) 16:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Srsly? Keegan (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Brad; It's a joke re Dennis marking the blocked socks. Remember Roger saying I should try and be funny? @Keegan. There's a thread above about the purpose of the code; it demonstrates a technique of styling borders.

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Br'erRabbit 19:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see ... but underlining and labeling the votes in this way is pretty distracting from the RfA's, so it would be best if you didn't do this any more. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up, Brad. Those users are friends of mine, the noms are about to pass, and it's just a bit of fun. And you should realise I don't bother hewing to silly 'restrictions' much. Srsly.

Damned, Gold Hat^{Old Speckled Hen}19:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it time ArbCom lifted his restrictions, while you're here, Brad? He's done great work since he's been back. Are the restrictions preventing anything?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan to propose any action concerning those restrictions at this time. After several years of addressing various aspects of the situation, I think it's best that I defer any initiative in this area, if there is to be one, to the other arbitrators. If a proposal were made, I'm not presently convinced that the restrictions are doing any harm, but I'm open to being persuaded. (In any event, this probably isn't the best forum to address the subject.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not "doing any harm" is not a valid reason to maintain restriction. Restrictions should not be maintained in perpetuity. And they do harm. They piss me off, for one. They supply ammo to detractors, which fosters toxic wiki-shite. They cost your committee the respect of many users. Br'erRabbit

Concur. Look at your original post, Brad. Was the conversation going to go anywhere productive?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It did go somewhere productive. My original post was really a (perhaps overly) polite request that Br'er Rabbit stop making confusing notations on his RfA !votes and underlining them. Since his response reflects that he doesn't plan to do this any more, my concern was resolved. I thought that was productive, at least. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't say I'd not do that again, and I don't agree with you that it's any sort of problem. Lighten up, Brad. Srsly. (nb: the underline is a play on the ~~strike-through~~)

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Jack Merridew

23:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

questionable question[edit]

Hi Legit Rabbit,

I read somewhere that if I put code in my custom css #bodyContent a[title="User:MathewTownsend"] { background-color: #0000FF; color: #00FFFF; } - then I could find myself in long threads etc. Works beautifully. But I notice on some people's talk page the colours are wrong. e.g. on Jmh649's page, my signature is turquoise on white. And on some other pages it is all one colour blue. Do you know what gives? Is it something that coded into particular pages that screws up my custom css?

(I'll get around to learning that footnote thing. I can't seem to make any sense out of it.)

MathewTownsend (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That code relies on MediaWiki generating that title attribute and it doesn't seem to on all pages, which is why it's not always working for you. It might be better to use a different selector. There may be conflicts with other CSS rulz, too. Try adding "!important" just before those two ';'. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trying it; God, that's awful ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you don't like my colour combination? Or what? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James' talk page is made from a table whose class is "plainlinks". Although it is within a div with id="bodyContent", the plainlinks class is applied later, so overrides your definition for the "a" tag with its own (which is .plainlinks a {{background:none;}}). The end result is that links on Doc James' talk page will always expose the underlying colour as a background - which happens to be set to white. I suspect similar styling will exist on other folks' pages as well. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well, thanks RexxS! Why does Doc James do that? Rabbit's solution works so I've defeated that! Now for the next menace to face. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good. I can undo this. Ya, I hated the colours ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well, I like the colours. Phooey on you. I want Alarbus back! MathewTownsend (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why they're in your common.css ;) Alarbus 03:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On "silly" restrictions[edit]

You may not have noticed, but I've been freed from servitude to the Committee for some months now, so I have no more standing than you to make such a proposal. That said, Brad doesn't seem to have suggested that anyone should make such a proposal, only that he wouldn't but that some other arbitrator might. — Coren ^(talk) 04:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware. You were involved, could do the right thing. You seemed a bit regretful at how it played out, at the end. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also very much uninterested in involving myself in arbitration matters. If I may offer a piece of advice, though, a better approach (and one more likely to succeed) is to argue constructively in one venue that whatever use the sanction might have had, it no longer has a useful function. Your previous method of repeatedly harping on how inane it is serves little purpose but make everyone tired of hearing you raise it every other sentence.

On Wikipedia, the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease; it eventually gets dismissed as squeaky and no longer heeded. — Coren ^(talk) 12:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, stay off my talk page with your useless advice. I'm not interested in involving myself in arbitration matters. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Record Production invites you to join[edit]

Greetings Br'er Rabbit
You appear interested in record production	Record Production is interested in you
We hope you will join our WikiProject and with EzSign, it really is simple to join. Use the link below to create your signup page, and then save the page. That's all it takes, and I hope you will join. In any regard, thanks for your efforts to improve this topic. They haven't gone unnoticed.

76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

I was beginning to worry that you were showing evidence of a WP:BATTLESHIP mentality - but you seem to have moved on. pablo 09:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These BATTLEBOATS? There are at least 15 more to-do. A pity, really :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature[edit]

Your signature here violates WP:SIG:

As it exceeds the 255 char limit.

Please stop using that signature or modify it to meet the requirements. Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 08:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure Riley? I think the sig is [[User:Br'er Rabbit|Br'er Rabbit]] ([[User talk:Br'er Rabbit|talk]]), the rest is just just blurb. Worm^TT(talk) 08:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

teh is not in the sig, either ;) 13:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Br'erRabbit

fixed.

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Br'erRabbit

13:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let Ralph see you breaking the rules :) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	A Carrot Barnstar
	Munch on a carrot or two Br'er Rabbit! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih, Dr. B. ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved, for Rabbits in the arts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I once had a beautiful rabbit named Desmond as he was white with a dark moustache and resembled Desmond Lynham. By no means is it hard to imagine..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of a neighbourhood cat I'd nicknamed Mr. Moustache. He came by for second dinner a lot. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey reference guru[edit]

Is there a tool or something to easily fix this reference mess? 28bytes (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, AfD it to call Pavlov's dogs. I chucked the null named refs that were masking what passed for refs on that turd. Unwatching it, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burn it! Burn it! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even read more than a sentence and a half into it... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick tidying, that should make my bot happy. (<ref name=""/> is one of the many things it counts as "stray mouse clicks" that need cleanup.) 28bytes (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WMUK & #100[edit]

Thanks for the note re. WMUK page, I've fixed it now. Re. the #100, yeah I realised it was a joke and had no problem with it. KTC (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Darwinbish[edit]

Evil Darwinbish attacking a gentle-eyed impala was very nice, thank you… though I've reverted your edit, feeling she may have pestered AGK enough for now. But it reminded me of Darwinbish's recent request to RexxS. He may well be too busy, and you may well be, too… still… I thought I'd mention it. I dunno, of course. It may not even be possible to have an animated ankle biter moving about (if possible, in a threatening manner) inside a photo — I know little of these things. The image RexxS made is already very cool, but how cool would it be if young Jaws actually moved in on the unfortunate armour-wearer? :-) Bishonen | talk 22:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. Ralph has new 'vice', which may take some of his time from teh failing projects. If he'll make animated gif, would could have it prance 'bout a picture taht includes an ankle or four. A .apng would give better results for fewer people :/ I mostly revert you now ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tag[edit]

Please don't edit while he has placed the inuse tag there. Show some respect eh? Resolve any disputes after he has removed it as he may be adding valuable content/edits.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see his {{wait}} until I'd saved; I was editing while he added it. Same thing happened to you. And adding the list of wives is a valuable content edit ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK, but I saw a few reverts so I thought you were engaging in an edit war.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring comments[edit]

Six of one, half a dozen of another ;) Giant Snowman 20:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you're not getting it :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I've got it, worry not. Giant Snowman 08:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youreallycan RFCU[edit]

Could I draw your attention to the comments posted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Youreallycan#Certification? Thanks in advance. Prioryman (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue you raise with YRC's interactions with Mkativerata looks significant, though it's not a matter of which I've previously been aware. Could you possibly explain what happened? Prioryman (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty significant and Rob's response to my mention of it omits much. I wasn't involved in that, but will review and post soon. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

What's the difference between using:

<nowiki>.. </nowiki>

and

<code>..</code> ?

(there obviously is one considering the various formats I got in trying each here) Is "nowiki" a subset of "code"? If there's a link to a page, I don't mind reading through it to get my answers if it saves you time typing it out. Thanks Br'er. — Ched : ? 11:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that the "code" is "html" .. but not sure I ever really understood it. — Ched : ? 11:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

"code" is html about forcing monospaced display of stuff; like pre, more like tt (inline, not block). nowiki is about turning off the parser so you can display wiki-markup. They are often used together: [[User:Mkativerata]] vs. User:Mkativerata, for example. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! Mkativerata (talk · contribs), missed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih. (if I understand it properly). — Ched : ? 08:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Threat charge[edit]

I believe that, based on this comment, you owe YouReallyCan 10 cents. Cheers! Cla68 (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me, block or ban someone? Too funny. And see wp:Don't pay the trolls. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Question[edit]

Hey Jack, got a question for ya. A user posted on my talk page that "something in [my] talk page makes it very difficult to click the talkback link". I think it is the blinking banner at the top, but I have had it there before with no problems. Could you take a look and see what the problem is? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the issue, off hand. You should ask Ryan for more details before chasing this. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. I'll ask him and get back to you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask if he's using a crappy browser. That accounts for half the problems on teh internets. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see your response, so I didn't ask about the browser, but I think this explains the problem. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. Wasn't really needed ;) Still not seeing how this relates to teh TalkBacks, though... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jack, Ryan posted another TB notice and it worked sans the smooshed up image on the notice that went half way down the page, but that is normal (happens cause my TOC and archive box is on the right). So, not sure why either, but that fixed it. :) Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a float-clearing issue. Add a talk page rule prohibiting {{TalkBack}}s and you'll be fine.

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-06/Op-ed and mw:Flow. You won't have a talk page for much longer, or {tb}, so no worries. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, essentially, Wikipedia is turning into Facebook. Facebook with articles. Lovely. So much for WP:MYSPACE. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That concern is addressed in there somewhere and really isn't what this is about. It's about helping the site function in better ways. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it looks like the "Timeline" version of Facebook. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're prolly looking at FB for UI ideas. But it's not about /being/ BF, it's about being a modern WP. For the most part, we've no coherent design, just reams of chaos. Street-Legal Sockpuppet
Br'erRabbit

05:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh we definitely have the market on chaos. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing query[edit]

Hi Jack. I have been doing a bit of work on Thomas Wyatt, & using {{sfn}} & {{citation}} rather than the cite templates and ldr, but have hit a snag I don't have time to experiment with right now. I want to cite volume 3 of this, and am unsure about how citation handles so many authors and editors and how to call them with sfn. If there's a simple answer, let me know otherwise I will experiment more later. Cheers pablo 08:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just use |ref={{sfnRef}} to specify what you want the footnote text to be;

| ref = {{sfnRef|Ward & Trent, eds., et al. Vol. 3|1907–21}}
inline{{sfn|Ward & Trent, eds., et al. Vol. 3|1907–21|p=123}}

or somesuch. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kool et al, 1969. One day I will tackle copyediting the damn thing, which is long overdue. pablo 09:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HARRASS[edit]

Please don't stalk me and my discussions, something which you accused me of doing only a couple of weeks ago. -- Cassianto^Talk 14:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement =/= stalking. I think you're mis-reading the intent here. — Ched : ? 14:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, your interpretation of "improvement" is warring? Brilliant! ...oh and by the way BR, please embrace WP:AATP. Your talk page is too large. -- Cassianto^Talk 14:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It always takes TWO to edit-war. But since you're aware of "Brilliant", then of course you're already aware of that. Personally I'd prefer to see discussion and consensus rule the day. I am aware of the "infoboxen" debate, and simply attempting to misdirect the situation into a "stalking and harassment" charge is not going to resolve the larger issue. A little more rational discussion, and a little less finger-pointing would be my preference. — Ched : ? 15:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should I start with the extra 'R'? With all due respect, commenting in a thread where you've made a bad faith allegation of "disruption", called me a "pirates", one of a group of "idiots", and part of an "infobox Gestapo" is quite acceptable. Your bullshite re infoboxes is disruptive. And see wp:GODWIN for how you've epically failed. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting changes to my talk page[edit]

Why? LadyofShalott 18:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page need some padding as the text was touching the borders. The other bits I removed had no effect ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked again and put the color back; I'd missed that it was in effect. I don't think the width was useful, thou. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, next time please do me the courtesy of dropping a note saying what you're doing and why. LadyofShalott 23:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I tried. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to undo it. If I'd wanted that to happen I'd have reverted it myself. I just would have prefered a note up front about what you were doing rather my having to ask. LadyofShalott 00:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i'll be sure to avoid this in future. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent signatures[edit]

Hi Br'er Rabbit. Your signature is too large. Would you please fix it. Do you require a pointer to the specific lines on polic/guideline? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol, you're just killing me tonight. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do something about it. Wikipedia is not FaceBook. The guidelines are here. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Street-Legal Sockpuppet
Br'erRabbit
05:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very nice[edit]

Thanks for the fix-up. In return, you've earned an IOU for one rogue admin action :) Mark Arsten (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I already took care of NW. Street-Legal Sockpuppet
Br'erRabbit

05:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jimbo Wales#Morale and good editor retention[edit]

This is to let you know that I've begun a thread on Jimbo's talk page which takes as an example an interaction in which we were involved. As I've written in aprominent disclaimer. there's "No intention to canvas here about infoboxes, involved individuals, or anything else. Rather, to use this concrete example to raise an issue which goes beyond individual personalities or any particular dispute."
—MistyMORN 18:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bzzt. Seeking anything on Teh Jimbo's page is always about shite-stirring. And you are seeking GodKing intervention in that discussion, so... Bzzt. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That response seems to me a good example of the type of insensitive cynicism to which I was alluding. Cheers, —MistyMORN 18:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

goway ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am most certainly not seeking any intervention in that discussion: I wouldn't, I hope, be so stupid. What I am seeking is to open a civilized debate on Wikipedia culture, and the ways in which the subset of editors capable of bringing articles to FA can be discouraged, or to use Tim's expression, "ground down". I think I've made this intention quite clear. Also that the thread does not regard infoboxes, or individual participants such as yourself or Andy. —MistyMORN 19:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "goway" did you not understand? Street-Legal Sockpuppet
Br'erRabbit

19:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes[edit]

I've been toying with the idea of an RfC to require infoboxes in articles in any case where a lead would be required and excluding stand-alone lists. Alternatively, I would support an RfC making infoboxes standard, overruling local consensus, and only removing infoboxes from a page if talk page discussion supports its removal. What do you think? Ryan Vesey 18:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This does need a higher level discussion. Today is not the day. This whole thing exploded over Solti. I came there fresh of toxic discussion re Ian Fleming and there's a parallel on re Peter Sellers. I had Solti watched because I'd edited before. As I see it, infoboxes are a site norm that enjoy wide acceptance and it is simply inappropriate for localities to seek to opt out because they don't like them. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to get the entire thing prepared to do it today anyways. I'm fairly busy, but I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping me draft it. Ryan Vesey 19:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some discussion up front. Andy, included. There's some old CM RFC that's 200kb that I've not read (and probably will not read fully;) I'll help as I can. Meanwhile, I'm going to eat ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are, however, articles that do not lend themselves to infoboxes. Normally I include them, but there are a couple of articles where they make no sense. If we "require" infoboxes, someone will shoehorn something onto things like (the TFA today) Gregorian mission or Carucage or Jersey Act or Norman conquest of England or Middle Ages or Decline of the Roman Empire or Late Antiquity ... is that what's wanted, really? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I need to get back to Wehwalt's talk. lot-o'-tl;dr (yet). There may be some article that don't warrant infoboxes. Mostly I think those would be little articles with a paucity of information. I look at the ones you've linked. It's may also be that we've not sufficiently developed the concept of "infobox" (ok, I'm sure of it;). Infoboxes are a précis for casual readers. Not everyone reads whole articles, as often they're just looking for a fact. Infoboxes are also the home for much metadata which is usually used for allowing access and "understanding" of data by computer programs. The project's core goal is to make free content available, and a key aspect of that is making it available in a useful form, which includes machine accessibility. Much of out content that's moved "out there" from this source has done so via automation. This isn't a paper project, it's building the foundation of the information age. Structure matters. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the value of infoboxes can vary a bit--I'm not sure that the first infobox on D. B. Cooper really adds anything. There was a battle over the use of an infobox on Winter Palace last year, I think in that case without looked better than with. I think they provide the most value on politicians and soldiers (as far as biographies go). There is something to be said about standardization though, and I tend to agree that a big Rfc would be a good way forward. Personally, I'm more or less agnostic about them, I don't usually add them to my articles but I've never complained when people have. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like Mark and a lot of folks, I don't see infoboxes as such a big issue that they need to dominate the discourse as much as they seem to have done lately. They certainly have uses both for the very casual surfer and the re-users like Google. Ealdgyth, I'd agree with your assessment on all of those articles: to take an obvious example, Norman conquest of England is a narrative and doesn't lend itself to summarisation as a series of small facts. But I hope you would agree that the infobox in the linked article William the Conqueror is useful as a very quick reference for the surfer who simply wanted to know where he was buried, for example. Horses for courses? --RexxS (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, since I was the one who maintained the article on William with the infobox, I'd have to say, yes, it applies there. I've added infoboxes to all the medieval English bishops also, as I think they add value to those. There just are some articles where they oversimplify and are not a good thing - in those cases, if we want to add metadata, we need a different solution than infoboxes. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I agree that there are exceptions, and it will be difficult to create a policy that addresses those all adequately. I haven't started anything, and I don't need to be the one who starts it (in fact, I don't particularly want to, but someone has to do it). My main concern is I don't believe a project should be able to say "Infboxes are not used here" and I think the burden should always be on exclusion of an infobox. (I.e. if consensus isn't created to exclude, it should be included). What would happen if WikiProject Biography said, all bios need infoboxes? Then we have a conflict of local consensus. Ryan Vesey 21:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think we have a lot of common ground with each other as well as the pig and the rabbit :D The decisions about whether an infobox is a net positive depends on a lot of factors and some degree of assessment by experienced editors who can weigh them. It naturally follows that it is just as wrong to dictate that no articles of a given category should have infoboxes as it is to require all articles of a type to have them. We can certainly give advice: most biographies benefit from infoboxes, but there are exceptions; the same is probably true for battles and battleships, but much less likely for empires and eras. Key to all of this is each editor's willingness to listen to the reasoned arguments of others. When we lose the inclination to do that, the encyclopedia is usually the loser. --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't work out how long you've been with us, but really this been gone over so many times before, at vast length, & won't be resolved differently this time. Rightly, a really strong majority is necessary to impose anything new on all articles (or nearly all), and you won't get it. Infoboxes suit some articles fine, but not others, with many in between. Let the local editors decide. With so many people on a break this is entirely the wrong time to launch anything. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That me? Almost eight years. I believe a majority of articles already have some sort of infobox. Trasclusion count tell a lot but the are a lot of articles out there with raw html table still in them; more with plain wiki-table syntax infoboxes. I was editing before we had more than a fistful of templates. See the op-ed in the current Signpost from the WMF's Senior Designer. A whole lot is going to be imposed on everything. He calls it a kick in the head. I'm sure there will be some article that truly don't warrant an infobox. For them, other metadata solutions will be needed. There is far too much 'local control'. It's all little fiefdoms of ownership. NB: I take a site-wide perspective. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know this will be deleted, but site wide requires dedicated writers. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you assume bad faith. Of course it requires dedicated writers. I work with a lot of them; my work is appreciated by a lot of them. You said on ANI that everything else has no value. That is a profoundly narrow minded view that is not compatible with a collaborative site. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was replying to Floq's comment re adding value. Building content adds value. Churning, as you well know, doesn't. So in that sense I was simply agreeing. At any rate, if "collaboration" includes name calling, put downs, months of sniping, then yes, you're right, I'm profoundly narrow minded and this clearly is not the place for me. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get involved with the composer debacle, but Br'er, you've seen some articles (like Hermaphrodite (Nadar)) really don't lend themselves to infoboxes. Forcing them for all articles would be overkill. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Call them "much preferred". PumpkinSky talk 02:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm thinking. Basically, an infobox is preferred for every article. It isn't a requirement that an author puts one in. Individual consensus on an article can decide that the infobox is not feasible. Rock (geology) will never have one. Ryan Vesey 03:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bet on that: {{Infobox rock}} ;) I'm not pushing for all. *Most*? Ya. In the end, I think most of the resistance is simple the personal opinion of specific participants. Semantically, most of the objections boil down to simply not liking them. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick notes, then I'm getting back to my wine. - I tried (I think successfully) to help mediate the creation of the Composers infobox; therefor, I was part of, and read all of (but will need to rescan) the old RFC. I'll potentially be able to help with a new RFC. - But 2 requests: Take a long time (a lot) to get it right; Slow and steady. And secondly, Everyone involved needs to help squelch anyone else's asshat maneuvers (ie no citing inflammatory essays!). I want metadata, and I both like and value summaries/synopsese/précis/lists/stats/categories/archetypes and other reductions, but I want a happy community of productive and intelligent editors even more. Even if someone is "right" (in either a objective OR a subjective dispute) if they're being unproductively rude then I (and others) find it harder to support them.

Two: Where the hell is google getting their metadata from? See Mozart and Mona Lisa - check their righthand infobox thingy (knowledge graph™). It's not coming from our infoboxes or categories. Inhouse database? Might not be relevant at all, but might be? -- Quiddity (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2) Teh Google's got a /lot/ of data ;) There is {{Persondata}} on Mozart that matches and Mona does have an infobox. Google aggregates data from many things. For stuff less covered out there, our stuff will be more determinative of what they offer.

1) The thing that's off about the compose infobox (and most other minor ones), is that much if what it's about is limiting the parameter set. It's not even subclassing infobox person; it goes to straight infobox and blocks all the other parameters from use. I'm sure not going to lead on this RfC, but I'll help. Do remember that the goal is that poor kid in Africa. She doesn't care about how the free content was made, she cares about the knowledge. Don't assume she'll read it here, either; one of our core goal is for the content to move elsewhere. Good structure facilitates that. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quidity, though you acted with the best of intentions, you were duped into creating {{Infobox composer}}, which is used by members of the classical music projects solely as a tool to replace more fully-featured infoboxes (chiefly {{Infobox person}} and {{Infobox musical artist}}), in order to prevent their parameters from being used (examples include this edit on Terry Riley and this on Scott Joplin; note edit summary). Note also that the composer infobox was deleted though due process, then recreated by a member of that project out-of-process. A second TfD, to again determine consensus, was prematurely closed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, you say "I would support an RfC [...] overruling local consensus, and only removing infoboxes from a page if talk page discussion supports its removal". We had exactly such an RfC with regard to classical music; and yet members of the related projects still issue "instructions" (their term) that no infoboxes are to be used on such articles, and systematically remove any that are, using canvassing to drum up support where necessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of you guys still planning an RfC for classical music infoboxes? I'd be willing to help hammer it out if you are. Them From Space 19:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is still needful, but the shite-stirrers are quite busy making this not the best time for it. Who knows, tonight tehy may lose tehir battle! Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding personal attacks and other offensive content[edit]

I requested you remove accusations of trolling and assorted accusatory unpleasantness, but you did not do so. To avoid fostering further drama, I made three reversions removing these unwarranted and defamatory attacks for you. You have now restored the offensive content. Please forebear or I will request administrative assistance. You have been warned: I take this matter seriously. —MistyMORN 16:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're simply being disruptive. kindly stop that. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in having "spin-off" arguments. Just break it up.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I trust Wehwalt's request is not addressed to me. —MistyMORN 16:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I trust it is. And the next time you try deleting content from other users' talk pages, I trust he'll be dropping an appropriate block on you. Take this as your warning. --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MistyMorn, I can understand your frustrations, but you probably should stay away from removing any comments on the noticeboard, and from posting on this page (except for any required notifications).

Br'er Rabbit, you are strongly requested not to use uncollegial shorthand such as "bzzt" or "goway" as edit summaries. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

welcome back, Brad ;> You do realise I'm quoting John, don't you? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seriously given up now. I've asked Dennis Brown or another admin to look into this. It's not that I want to take any specific action, I have no wish to be vindictive. I just have to get out of this situation, if nothing else for the sake of my heart. I seriously cannot contribute in this sort of environment. I honestly hope Br'er Rabbit, Wehwalt, RexxS and others will understand. For me this has a beastly business and beastly lonely and frustrating. —MistyMORN 17:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you apply this warning for your foul language too. -- Cassianto ^Talk 17:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

didn't like [[WP:Dramaboard|fucking page]]? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you said the word "fucking" and you were offensive? I'm shocked. </sarcasm> Seriously though, I honestly don't know what this is about, but MistyMorn, if you did something and someone posts that accusation with a link, you can't honestly tell them not to, to sweep stuff under the rug. You also can't remove posts from a thread as that is a violation of the rules. You can only do that on your own talk page and from what I have seen, this was not your talk page. Also, can everyone stop throwing the word "troll" around about everyone they don't like? Thanks. As an uninvolved and impartial observer, I see no need for admin assistance on this one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what all this is about. BR has helped lose us another good editor. -- Cassianto ^Talk 19:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which editor? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MistyMorn. He has decided to take a break after a number of unpleasant exchanges with BR. Coincidently, BR was also involved in a discussion which led Tim riley to quit yesterday. Curious... -- Cassianto ^Talk 20:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Must not be that good since I hadn't heard of either and I have been here just shy of 6 years. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP is a big place. I have never heard of you despite your six years in residence. No offence. I recommend you check out WP:FA. Tim Riley was a prolific writer in the field of classical composers. He wrote 16 featured articles including good article content. -- Cassianto ^Talk 20:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, please stay off this talk page; you're not welcome here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters now (since you got the Talk Page Banhammer), but I have two GAs, a Class A, an FA, and a TFA to my name, so I have been to FA before...and no offense taken. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your infobox concerns and desire to make all articles standard, but you must admit your friend Wikiwatcher clearly has an agenda and appears to be jealous that his efforts have since been greatly altered to the point he is childish enough to request name removal from its history. I like you Br (I know who you are, we go a long way back don't we) but you have to admit his behaviour here as been worryingly immature. The things he is saying on the talk page, to talk of Sellers's grave as being more useful than the article is quite frankly rather unbecoming don't you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea who Wikiwatcher is. I agree with a few specific edits they've made but the name thing was silly as would be whatever he said about the grave. He also criticise your work on the article, which I'm sure is your usual excellent work. There's also Doc9871 in there and while he's kinda right on a few bits, my views of him are well known. I'm not going to distance myself from issues just because a few wrong people are supporting them (there are plenty of the right people supporting the important issues, too). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably everything worth saying has been said, except perhaps that sometimes, even if we disagree, jeez, we need to be respectful of each other. I don't recommend removing comments on admin boards, but Rabbit, it wouldn't hurt you to be a little more understanding as well. I really don't care what is in the article, as long as it is decided by a consensus of people not jumping on soap boxes. There is plenty of blame to go around, but at the end of the day, being rude to each other isn't the answer either. I do expect more from experienced editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And more that would have been best unsaid. I've never heard of MistyMorn before 2–3 days ago when they came at me with an absurd argument and then launched into a Jimbo thread (which I view as the other dramaboard). You mentioned a magic wand recently and that's where I'd use it. It's been a few hours since you were pinged so I expect you've looked a fair bit. There's more, I assure you. The 'heat' in all this originated more than a week ago re Ian Fleming and with SchroCat and Cassianto (I'd never encountered either of them before, either). They tagged along to the discussion re Solti and that's when it began to heat up. And today, it's all on Peter Sellers, which is why Dr.B. is just above. I will try and take the heat out of things, but there are lot of folks stoking the fires. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I did try to (very briefly) explain the context of the jimbo tactic, as others perceive it, over here. Hindsight is 20/20. ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will. I wish you all the best. -- Cassianto ^Talk 05:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piss off; you just piped Myxomatosis to "all the best". And you presume to the moral high ground ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TfD for Cite web/smart[edit]

I am contacting you, per wp:CANVAS, as a user previously opposed to quick, fast citation templates, in considering the latest TfD discussion, 11 August 2012:

WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 11#Template:Cite web/smart

This notice is only an FYI, as announcing the discussion under way. Feel free to oppose the template, support the template, ignore the discussion, or even delete this message. The TfD just started, so there should be, at least, 7 days to consider the issues. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the (disingenuously worded;) notice. I've expressed the opinion that it should be deleted and you be blocked for disruption. Consensus is to improve the existing templates; you're not doing that. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice[edit]

Friend, you are a very skilled wiki-graphic designer – but you need to realize that having a skill is one thing and knowing when to use it is another – equally important. Social skills are required for a collaborative encyclopedia – I know you have them – they just seem to be superseded whenever it comes to the duty/right to immediately fix "design errors" in other people's work (including their talkpages) – or when there's a chance to take a jab at tk88. I would be a much happier wikipedian if I knew that you would be considerate in using your powers, and think about whether others will agree that your skilled solution will be the best. Most people respond best to proposed changes to their work if they are included in a dialogue about it. Remember what Uncle Ben used to say. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take input aboard readily enough. I fix things all the time and usually there's no fuss. This place fusses over stupid shite far too much. There are better things to do. I don't accept that I'm responsible for Tim's withdrawal, but I've been attacked viciously over it and to the extent that I've not had the peace to email him about it. I didn't even think about Ms. Diva until she took a poke at me on ANI. Look at the ratio of edits to articles vs edits to talk on these disputes. There is tonnes of discussion. Mostly I ignore resistance to fixes and let whomever retard "their" article, as there are plenty of others needful of work. I know that quote, but not from that fictional character. Jack never did comic books (well, except Tintin). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to hold you responsible for anyone's withdrawal – I know that you are capable of realizing on your own account when you've been the cause of someone's frustration. And I also meant what I said when I said there is a clear qualitative difference betwen your way of fixing TFA's and Andy's. I would suggest that the volume of talk is a symtom of not having approached the issue correctly (i.e. with antagonism) rather than of having done so correctly. If the "fix" is really selfevidently a fix, then they shouldn't generate much discussion at all – and they wouldn't become disputes. It is not "this place" that fusses over anything, it is people who are as invested in their particular brand of stupid shite as you are in yours. If you remember that and act accordingly I predict that both you and those your interact with will be more happy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that a lot of things get cast as stupid shite that aren't. People have areas of knowledge as well as gaps. Far to many people attempt to operate outside their areas of skill. You think I'm going to argue with you over the grammar of Mesoamerican languages? But people with no knowledge of website or user interface design argue with me all the time. They don't get it, and when explained they still don't get it. The consensus model gets a lot of things wrong. In the end, happy isn't the goal, correct is. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that idea of the goal, and with the idea that there is a single correct way to design wikipedia pages (or of describing the grammar of Mesoamerican languages). The consensus model doessn't get things wrong – it is the only standard we have to go by. More often than not people argue because the way a change is implemented makes them unhappy than because of the actual substance of the edit. That alone should make you concern yourself with the happiness of your fellow editors – if only for pragmatic reasons.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about "the community" at all, it's about the product, which is free content. It suffuses out into the internet and billions of minds. And much of the time the attribution is lost and that doesn't really matter at all. There certainly are many good ways to design wiki pages and all of the current ones are going to change (PDQ, actually). And I've no idea if Mesoamerican languages have grammar in the sense I know it. The consensus model typically results in gridlock, and that stifles all sorts of progress. That's what that link ←←← is really about. Got an hour and a half? The WMF is going to start moving at greater than the speed of consensus. There's a plan: attract and encourage more non-dysfunctional folks, who will hopefully one day overwhelm the dysfunctional ones with a cascade of niceness and rationality. Too many people here love to argue; they specialise in it. And too many are stuck in obsolete patterns of doing things. Core articles that were developed early on are still stuck in the norms of years ago, while better approaches are available. No one really knows what's in the four million articles, but it doesn't take much looking to find that huge numbers of them suck. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the insubstantial benefits of editing Wikipedia is that you are probably doing more to affect how people think about an issue or person than any six newspapers or twelve books.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and that is why every crank and POV warrior is here. The anyone can edit model is really a test of whether or not the collective "we" can get it right. We're doing no better than out in the real world. Why would we? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your new identity[edit]

Br'er Rabbi? Mazel tov! Prioryman (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blame NuclearWarfare... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Question (Part 2)[edit]

Remember the talk page problem I was having with the talkbacks? Well, after some tinkering, I moved my talk page archive box away from the Table of Contents and it seems to have fixed the problem. Apparently the archive box was goofing up the TOC box and messing up the talkbacks. Not sure how, but it's fixed. :) Just thought I would let you know in case you run into this problem again. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Scarlet Template[edit]

Hi Br'er Rabbit, I am writing to tell you that I have reverted one of your changes to the {{Captain Scarlet}} template, where you changed the colour schemes. This is because I felt that the template, didn't look as interesting as the previous version, and the fact that the majority of it was red seem to correspond with the series along with the other colours used. Jcamts (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I've fixed it, again. That absurd colour scheme is completely inappropriate. Have a look at WP:ACCESS. Such colours present difficulties for some readers. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's been fixed before. Not clueful of you to repeat this. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declining unblock-request[edit]

This unblock handling of yours seems out-of-process. Blocking is an administrative action and the instructions for the accept/decline of {{unblock}} are explicitly marked "Administrator use only". Obviously anyone can comment on blocks and try to resolve editor concerns, but probably better to leave the formal closure of the request to an admin (the unblock queue is not very long:). DMacks (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

twas definitely out of process ;) You do know I've been here years longer than you, for example, have and have quite a bit more experience. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Well I don't know about the value of "experience" obviously, and I'm not disputing the rejection of the request:) DMacks (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've done a lot of stuff, here ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes[edit]

Hi, Br'er Rabbit. I noticed you re-added the color to The Simpsons' template. Do you think the colors are allowed if the text is visible? That's what I thought, but I was reverted by a user who cited WP:DEVIATIONS. Let me know, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very against deviant colours in navboxes. wp:deviations is about not messing with the look of the site and not cementing things at the leaf-level. Such things should be set in site-wide stylesheets to ensure a coherent site design. That said, it was me that put that back into {{The Simpsons}}. It was also me that added that demonstration of gradients, shadows, and round corners in the first place. It is based on a prototype({{navbox/testcases#Gradient}}) of how all navboxes could be. Time to poke that idea along. Colours are sought by a few localities of the project. Mostly it's television and assorted other pop-crap. WP:MILHIST is the other notable deviant from normal practise. It's all very wilful and disruptive to the image of the project. The nickname for this is skittlepedia. For a laugh, see User:Br'er Rabbit/2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so are you saying I should re-add the visible color to per say Template:Grey's Anatomy and Template:Private Practice? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, only The Simpson is called out in wp:deviations, thus it can serve as a demonstration of the various techniques. It's been in there since last year and only a few groused. And it quit when I tweaked it to fail gracefully for the retarded browser. By all means fix up all the others. If you need help, I will. I'm good at fixing navboxes. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hey...[edit]

When you get time .. could you have a look at an article for me? I posted here originally because I was afraid to approach Raul. User:Wehwalt was very kind in offering suggestions, and I'd very much like to see Amazing Grace on TFA. There's a conversation here, and I'm wondering about the ref style (seems sort of 2008), Any tips would be greatly welcomed. — Ched : ? 22:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about Teh Raul teh 654th and Last of Teh House of FA; that's all a vestige of outdated wiki-views. That's a beautiful song and it would be quite reasonable to run that article. The point system is meaningless so just toss the idea out and it will happen. fyi, I once heard a friend's mom sing that at her daughter's wedding in Vietnamese. The wedding was western-traditional and the reception was the full Vietnamese tradition. She named her son after me. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deal well with "mean" people ... and that's all I have to say about that. On the other hand... in Cherokee... beautiful in all languages. — Ched : ? 13:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think its worldwide appeal is partly due to the fact that it has teh pentatonic, which many cultures use as a basis. pablo 13:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A question[edit]

Do you think there is a way of combining small caps as in the {{aut|}} with the last=/first= parameters of the harvard references? Or could you invent one? The small caps with indent really improves the readability of long bibliographies. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There probably is. Rather than snotting up all the citations with {{aut}} or some such, the cite templates could have a parameter to set this mode. They already have too many options, though, and I don't believe the small caps are at all helpful, anyway. It looks very affected and old-school. I don't much like the indenting, either, as it's inconsistent with the overall site design. Endless variations are not helpful ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting and smallcaps makes it much easier to navigate a long bibliography and find the author you want. The problem with wikipedia bibliographies is that the linking (to silly things like isbn's) often draws away attention from the author name which is what should generally attract most attention. In real academic bibliographies the formatting of bibliographies is designed to make it easier to find author names and titles - both of which are often made difficult to find in the standard site layout. I think that whether it looks old school is rather less relevant - sometimes old school is just better. If there were a way to combine small caps with harvard I'd go through my old articles and harvardize them - otherwise I won't bother because I think both have similar drawbacks and advantages.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're back, Jackie[edit]

That means that even Greup teh Gient can be welcomed back into teh communiteh. Unwanteduser (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bet your sorry ass on that ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, i have noticed that Peter Damian has been blocked again. There is no point in going back here, if not to mock all the structure of this site. Too bad! Unwanteduser (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not thinking you're "PD". Shoo. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, and your participation in this discussion may be critical to finding a resolution. The thread is "User_talk:Complainer, Felice_Bauer". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 21:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption of the TFA process[edit]

You have been previously warned that you are not the FA director, and do not get to schedule FAs. Apparently this has not sunk in, as you did this morning when you rescheduled Henly and screwed it up in the process. Now you are soliciting others to violate the rules. [10][11] If you continue to do this – either rescheduling FAs or soliciting others to – you will be blocked. There will be no further warnings on this subject. Raul654 (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, now that I've thought about it further – since you can't seem to keep a lid on your trolling, I've also decided to unilaterally ban you from the TFA requests page. Any comments you make there will be removed on sight. Raul654 (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshite Raul ~!

ANI discussion[edit]

I have created a discussion about you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jack Merridew and the main page featured articles Raul654 (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merridrew? Now I am confuse. pablo 23:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't! He's also Br'er Rabbi, see above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you certainly managed to wake me up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alarmbus? pablo 00:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is for wakeup-calls ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has been a bit of that going on. pablo 00:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfast trays for all! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bzzt! Time to Make Teh Donuts! lulwut ~!

morning! TFA: Manhunter, the first of Grapple X (no Precious, he has it already, for Great Dismal Swamp maroons), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morning. I've been there; weeks ago. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

been there - I thought in the swamps --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Violations[edit]

An official policy imposes that I discuss things with you before resorting to WP:ANI; I am therefore posting here a summary of the wikipedia policies you have, in my opinion, violated:

WP:Civility: you cannot call editors "twerp", nor can you tell them to "grow up", especially considering the confrontational nature of your own edits. I don't whether the policy covers "littlun", which is, however, ridiculous, considering I have probably been an editor (albeit relatively inactive) longer than you have.
WP:VAN: the edit you made on Felice Bauer was intentionally incorrect, as you had obviously read the reasons for it on my talk page.
WP:HA by posting the same mock proposal over and over on my talk page.
WP:HOUND: your edit on Felice Bauer was made, quite clearly, by tracking my edits to harass me.
WP:FUCK: why would you involve yourself in what cannot even be called a dispute between me and PumpkinSky? This is not your fight.

You also seem to have misunderstood another wikipedia, as you point out, essay: a troll is somebody who disrupts wikipedia. I cannot see how I can possibly disrupt wikipedia for anybody by not answering snarky edits. At the very best, refusing to answer such edits is a minor etiquette violation; however, since I am denying recognition, I am fully entitled to mention that, well, I am not the only one doing so. complainer (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC YRC[edit]

You certified this, yet in the ArbCase you seem to say that you have not been significantly involved in disputes with YRC/O2RR. Unless you can say that you are a "User who tried and failed to resolve the dispute" you should probably not be certifying the RFC. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 22:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I look at it as I tried to resolve an issue that I saw but wasn't directly involved in. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

for fixing this. DH85868993 (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix hyphenation error[edit]

Please fix your hyphenation error. The page reference means page 12 of appendix C, not from page C to page 12, so the original hyphen was correct. The source used a hyphen, as explained in the HTML comment that warned you not to make this error. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it since others are continuing to edit this article and I wanted to avoid interactions with subsequent edits. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auriga[edit]

Hey Br'er, umm, I sorta broke the refs on Auriga (constellation) again. Could you help please? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

looks like only three of them... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

miss '=' on one, missing |ref=harv on another, and you needs a {{full}} definition of:

Kashyap; Rosner; Harnden; Maggio; Micela; Sciortino (1994).

Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh I didn't know about the {{full}} thing. Thanks so much! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Others' comments[edit]

This is just putting wood on the fire. There'd be less of a backdraft if you didn't do that (yes, it can be annoying... I've been called "Crisco something" quite a few times) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fixing username typos is pretty long accepted practise. Taht whole thread just went off whatever rails there were. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Agree with that second sentence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both, don't remember how many times I fixed misspellings of "Rlevse", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Featured article process and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Rs chen 7754 09:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Building bridges[edit]

Hi, taking a deep breath here and making an offer. I'm not crazy about the idea of an arb case (would have done it when Risker suggested if that's the direction I wanted to go), but I think something has to be done to defuse tension around here. From my view a lot of this blew up when we stumbled over each other at Hemingway and since then it's just freaking blown out of proportion. So I have an offer to make that might be a way to build a bridge: you and I, the two of us, pick a literature page (because I know you're interested in literature) and work on it together. We use each of our talents to make the best page possible, throw it at FAC with TFA being the ultimate goal. Some ideas: I've had my eye on Jack London for a long time, or one or his books (White Fang or The Call of the Wild), but there's the notice at the top of this talk that made me think it might be kinda fun to do Golding's The Lord of the Flies. I know and respect the skills you bring to a page, and though you don't write much you're a good writer. You might be surprised that I know more about internal structure than I let on. The point would be to join forces, build a bridge, become invested, and let our individual talents shine while simultaneously collaborating. It could be a bloodbath; it could be fun. We'lll never know until we try. Interested? Truthkeeper (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Br'er would have fun. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like This would be a lot more constructive than yet another popcorn party. And is, after all, the kind of thing that is supposed to happen on WP. pablo 15:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeedy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+ 1 Lord of the Flies needs a ton of work. Such an important book must have a body of scholarly work that could be used to improve the article. Jack London is in good shape and likewise could be a fab article with a few more citations and polish. I support this idea of collaborating rather than scrapping and holding grudges. -- Dianna (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dislike . Oppose. Am I gonna get left as the only editor who knows how to hang on to a grudge? What's really supposed to happen on WP is teaching everybody a jolly good lesson. Not all that article stuff. "Jaws" Darwinbish (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
+ 1. I'm all for that, as it might encourage me to get my arse in gear and finish off Golding's inspiration for his book, R, M. Ballantyne's The Coral Island, one of my favourite books as a kid. As for hanging on to grudges, well you'd need a better memory than mine to do that; I forget names so quickly it's unreal. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know, I was going to agree to something here. But I guess I didn't jump fast enough because Ceoil and TK have kicked up shite over the Infobox that Gerda added to Amazing Grace. I'd also offered to help Ceoil with the refs on... whatever... and last I looked there was no further reply. The articles TK mentions suck. Their refs suck. I did try to fix up Jack London, but believe some of it has eroded. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well generally article here do suck but that doesn't mean they can't be fixed. Anyway, I replied at Amazing Grace in regards to that situation and sorry I chose sucky pages to present to you. I tried at least. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~In the interest of building bridges I'm not going to stand in the way of you damaging Amazing Grace. At least I tried to help it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

I made a single edit and reverted. I've taken it off my watchlist and will take this page off too. I still believe mending fences is better than tearing them down, but as you've probably noticed, I'm not thick skinned and I've given up enough skin in the past many months. Good luck with everything (that meant sincerely and not in sarcasm). Truthkeeper (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you two like videos on YouTube. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two can play at that game. Video on YouTube Ceoil (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TK, if you work on the prose of those articles adding refs in any form, I will re-work them using modern {{sfn}} refs and WP:LDR as appropriate. I have an edition of The Call of the Wild, White Fang & To Build a Fire (ISBN 978-0-375-75251-3) with me. I don't have a copy of Lord of the Flies, as I left those in Bali due to luggage weight limits (had an old paperback with the word 'nigger', too, changed to 'savages' in latter printings). Consider this a division of responsibilities. These have infoboxes, too, and I'll also take care of those. These are all important articles that should not suck. I think we should invite a few others to participte here, too. Gerda, for example. Deal? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I'm more interested in London than Golding to be honest, and I've spent a few moments looking at them: Call of the Wild is more of a blank slate so might be the best but I have a fondness for White Fang though I'd want to do away with the character list. The "preceded by" should be removed from the infobox because that's for a series and these really were written to be standalones.

I don't have an issue with the {sfn} and I know the syntax; well to be honest my issue is one of vision. It's simply easier for me to see the angles instead of the curlies and the pipes, so I tend to make more mistakes with the curlies.

I'll need a little lead time to find and read sources once we decide which one to go with - and I'll leave it to you to decide. I'll take notes from the sources and sandbox everything so that you have access too. I usually follow the sources and read the book last and then rewrite the plot summary at the very end.

As for a group - my feeling is that if Gerda wants to join us that's okay and I'd want to bring in a very good copy-editor, probably Yomangani. I'll ask around. Alternately, with the "too many cooks" thought in mind, we could just go at this ourselves. And let's be honest: you and I have been in dispute, so maybe it's a way to show that editors can overcome a dispute, fwiw. My sense is that you probably know the material better than I - it's been a while since I studied London, but I really like him. Anyway, this is written in haste - I just popped in and saw your response. If it at all prevents a nasty arb case, I'd be thrilled. I'm running into a very busy time work-wise, but will be checking in on a daily basis. Sound okay? Truthkeeper (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking one, I was thinking all. But how about the London stories, especially CotW and White Fang, as they are quite related. That's why the infobox says preceded by; CotW was followed by WF, not by publication data, but in London's vision for his works. A character list is a good thing, although that one has extra description. I'd have no issue with a compact list and whole sections on the main characters and the other grouped; as other chars, or something. I'm not going to get too fussed about much of the body text at all.

A vision issue is a poor rationale for selecting a citation mechanism. Adjust your user and browser prefs; use zoom. I suggested Gerda because she's mellow (and female). I'd been thinking Mally for copyediting (and skipped Diannaa 'cause you two have clashed; we can nudge her at Herr der Fliegen).

I've read these within the last year and would enjoy another read of them. I'm not seeing this as related to the ArbWorld issues. You see that Teh Raul is not going to deign to comment there? Classic WP:VESTED ;> Don't forget that he's already fallen a long way; was forced to relinquish CU and Oversight some years ago, for example. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy you've read these; you're on for the plot synopses. One of them I think could use a bit of trimming. If your book has an intro we can use material from that; I've looked for my copy and can't find it so will have do with a library copy. I'm fine with doing both CoTW and WF and then the story. I'd also be fine working with Diannaa who is a talented copyeditor. I may need to turn to someone with subject expertise and the only person I can think of is Maria (also writes about Am. Lit), but that's in the future. I've linked two Jstor files in my sandbox, if you can get those, that would be helpful. I'll set up a sandbox for this, but won't be for a few days - if that's something you can do for me, great. The existing sources look a little dodgy and the ebscohost urls can go - they're institution specific, I think.

Don't want to have a big conversation re cite styles. I'll say this much - it's an issue of scar tissue in the eyes and not something that's taken care of by zooming. I have blindspots and some characters are simply easier to see than others. End of story as far as that's concerned. I'd definitely want to spruce these pages up to get through FAC and leave it to you decide whether we go through GA first - I often think it's not that helpful but others like to take that route. I'd definitely think we should shoot for a PR & try to rope in Brian Boulton or Ruhrfisch to have a look. But again, that's down the road. Give me a few days to finish the Alps, and get started on the reading. I'm actually looking forward to this. Also, we prob should move the discussion to the article talk pages at some point. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like London's stories. The Sea-Wolf is one of his best. The Unparalleled Invasion one of his creepiest (s:The Strength of the Strong/The Unparalleled Invasion if you've not read it).

I'm not "on" for the plot synopses, I'll be responsible for the referencing mechanisms, the infoboxes, and general markup. My edition does have an introduction by E. L. Doctorow; 4 pages. That "Maria" Nikkiemaria who harasses my edits regularly? No thank you. Or Yllosubmarine who makes unhelpful edits like these? (note cite regression, broken link to File:Heinold’s First and Last Chance 2007.jpg.) No thank you. Diannaa and Mally can probably help, and Keilana with whom I've been working on constellation article (and is on WP:MEDCOM) would be a useful participant. I don't have jstor access, and I don't have a sandbox; I use local files for that sort of thing.

Too much information re your vision. That's an accessibility issue, albeit not what WP:ACCESS is really about (readers, not editors). Choice of citation system is not driven by their use of "<>" vs "{{}}", it is driven by the merits of the mechanism. Those characters are simply how html, wiki-text and such have evolved. You've said you're on a Mac, so mebbe try VoiceOver.

GAR is a crap shoot. They're screwed if an incompetent picks the article. DYK has that fault, too. Even the FAP allows anyone to be a reviewer, although there are some reviewers that are obviously quite good. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BR, I'm too tired and too cranky right now to negotiate. What I'm hearing is that I'll research and write not one but two articles and you'll take care of citations and infobox. If that's the case that's cool with me. Bring whomever you want along. If I need to consult re sources, I'll do so with whomever I think is the best subject expert. As for the plot, if you don't want to tidy the prose, I'll do it, but won't be until I've read the works, and that won't be for a while. I'm expecting to have to read somewhere in the range of 500 + pages for this collaboration and I'm very busy workwise so I'll get to it as I get to it. Given that we both like London, I thought you might want input vis-a-vis content, but we'll see how that goes. I'll set up my own sandbox when I get the time so that whatever crew is working on this can have access to sources as I find them. I'll buy the book with the Doctorow intro - he's good and I'm sure the intro is probably good. I can start with the Jstor files, but don't have email enabled so if someone else can get them for you and if you're interested in reading them, then fine. If not, that's fine too. We agree re GAR. Sorry to be so blunt, but I've had a long day. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less how Br'er operates (enjoys doing the refs only). For the Jstor references, try WP:RX. They can usually help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant by "division of responsibilities" and not getting "too fussed" with the body text. I edit a lot of articles and don't dwell too long on any one for the most part. I'll let Gerda, Dianna and Kei know and we'll see who shows up. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - I just noticed that the "ratings" at the bottom of the page are in the high 4s. So what you and I both agree is sucky the rest of the world thinks is good. Go figure. I have to go back to the Alps - will return in a few days to Skagway. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the following: why the journals were listed without titles; why E.L Doctorow's intro isn't set up as a separate entry as it should be; ditto the bio section in the book; why the anchors haven't been set up so I can {sfn} the cites. Do you want to bag this "collaboration"? Truthkeeper (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a request? The title was an inadvertent omission. I've only just seen that you've been editing the article; above you said you were going to be reading and would be a while. I'll have a look. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BR - this is a page I'd like to work on, but I'd also like you to pitch in as you said you would. I bought a book and posted the info on the talk page over a week ago and also somewhere downpage. It was ignored. Clearly you have no interest in going forward with this, which is a shame because the page is coming along fairly well. Should we bag it? I'd like to know, because I'll return the book and get back the money I spent. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, and you removed it as unnecessary. You said above had a lot of reading to do and would get to it as you get to it. Didn't you say you bought the edition I have? And another?

I've been busy; lots goes by on this talk and this was easy a thousands edits ago. I see a busted "Inspired" link in there that I can fix; I'll add the other sections of the book, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do us a solid[edit]

	Here's some handy storage containers
	Could you please do the community a favour and set up an archive for this page? It's getting to be really difficult to navigate. Thanks. Dianna (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been telling him this for months... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's trying to break Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's record. 28bytes (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid to open that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He can't archive right now, because I keep telling people to count the number of "thanks" on this page since May. I stopped at 100 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber is pretty bad about archiving his talk too.PumpkinSky talk 08:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Br'er Rabbit/Archive 1 please please! (My computer isn't powerful, and strains noticeably when i open multiple 400+kb pages in tabs.) Would be much appreciated. —Quiddity (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation removed[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have removed your insertion of a quotation on User talk:Anthonyhcole which, in the context of your quarrel with this user, contained references to violence and was shockingly inappropriate. Do not restore this or any similar material to that page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same quote switch I've long used for Golding. It contains a dozen quotes. Anthonyhcole is badgering me and was just warned for making personal attacks on me. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that in the context of the interaction between you and Anthony, any quotation from that book would have been a particularly useful addition to that page. And as it happened, the particular quotation that came up was probably the most inflammatory one it could have been, including overt references to knives and squealing and blood, which is a possibility you should have envisioned given that you chose the quotations. Don't ever do anything like this again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it be. He gets LotF, Brad. There's a lot of bad faith running around the wiki lately with me in the cross-hairs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:Badgering you? That's a personal attack. Withdraw it or back it up. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you need to go find a new hobby. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right. You didn't contribute to the departure of Tim riley, and I apologise for saying you did.[12] I'll go find myself a new hobby. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you believe that had done? Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here, where he says "Wikipedia has infoboxes. Full stop. It is inappropriate for a specific group to dig in their heels over anomalous views." and describes such people as wilful, and this, where he says Tim wouldn't leave the project over an issue like this and seems to mock Tim's "brilliant prose", and basically his unwavering support of Andy's behaviour on Solti's main page day. Tim's responses emphasised the importance of respect. But if Tim says that didn't contribute to the situation, then it didn't. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Br'er Rabbit's obsession with infoboxes is certainly a problem, I agree. Malleus Fatuorum 03:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, obsessions can be healthy; being disrespectful is the problem. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a new hobby beside hanging out here, capisce? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More so that he puts them above primary editors on FAs. This about Moni3 while fighting for an infobox on an article where she expressly did not want an infobox; "I do not care what a departed user said about it".[13]. Thats rotten, unfair to the departed, and a chilling warning to people who invest so many hours of effort on any page. Rabbit if you remove this post, as you usually do with me, it only shows you dont have the guts to stand by your words and actions. Ceoil (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word "chilling" is much over-used here, but I take your point nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 03:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moni's article was used as football to make several points, over and above her wishes. TFA, Infoboxen, and Tony files. And they descended en mass, and in quick sucession. Thats frosty and cold enough for me, even at my age. Ceoil (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Amazing Grace was chosen - as you can read on the requests talk - for its content. That the author was Moni3 turned out later and was by some considered a reason to not run it. I think it's a great topic and belongs on the main page, regardless of the author. - I don't understand the football image. I (personally) don't need a infobox, There can't be too much Amazing Grace ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of thing happens all the time, strange that so many seem blind to it. Malleus Fatuorum 04:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its about this strange to me <pushes fingers really close together>. It suites a political motive. cough. Ceoil (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you need to go find a new hobby. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Ceoil, what about the feelings of the person who took the time time to put {{infobox hymn}} on an article about a hymn? Just because Gerda is a gentle person who always thinks the best of everyone, it doesn't give you the right to destroy her work with an edit summary of "rm". No discussion, no justification of why infobox hymn is inappropriate for a hymn article, just pure destruction of another editor's work. You know what that tells everybody? It tells them that you OWN that article; that you feel you have the right to summarily reject other editors' work without debate, and that they have no right to know why. Let's face it; you're the cough, and it's behaviour like yours that drives off new editors in their droves. No wonder the editor base is in terminal decline. --RexxS (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that re Gerda, RexxS, and no offense was meant to Gerda, and editor whom I respect and have a lot of time for; I have a strong interest in Bach myself and we have talked about this ourselves. But the approach here sucks, and Rabiit and Diaana at least knew what they were up to. Also come on now; me an attack dog; for whom exactly? That makes no sense, apart from the fact that if the best you can do is accuse me of being what I accused Rabbit of, go back to the playground. If you cared to look and think before you start defending your group before spinning bullshit like "it's behaviour like yours that drives off new editors in their droves", you'd see thats totally not the case with me, I'm usually concillatory and encouraging, not to mention the high orony that jack might be a new user, no matter how many incarnations. Har. But whatever, that would require effort and though rather than easy group think, and Ive rarely seen that from you.. But at least you deflected blame to me, well don, there. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also [14]. Ye guys ;) Ceoil (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to read about my feelings ;) thanks for the consideration, I feel fine and enjoy my latest barnstar, - if you want to make me feel even better please do content, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~My latest barnstar? Oh god, the scene that celebrates itself. For a number of reasons <shiver>, euw. Take me away.~~ Ceoil (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, too late, responded already, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, striking, I have no beef with you Gerda, apologies if i sounded harsh. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't want to make you shiver ;) I was surprised to find Amazing Grace mentioned already in a talk we had a while ago (linked in my response to Truthkeeper) - I didn't remember but find it fitting, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Doctorate thesis?[edit]

Are we allowed to use doctorate thesis as source? --Lecen (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Yes, usually we are. It depends on a few things, but they're generally accepted. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP for the guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mark. But what should be the appropriate way to cite a doctorate thesis? According to Wikipedia:Citation templates, I should use the journal template. Is that truly correct? But the thesis was not published in a journal. --Lecen (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't used it before, but we have {{Cite thesis}}, which is geared for unpublished theses. That template's documentation says to use {{Cite book}} for published ones. Not sure which page is correct, though. I don't think I've cited a thesis before, oddly enough. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use whatever cite template you find fits the information you have: {{Cite book}} normally works well. The Rabbit (or somebody else) will be along soon enough to tidy it up for you. The wiki works well like that :) --RexxS (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, so there is a cite thesis template! That's what I was looking for! Thanks guys, --Lecen (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012[edit]

Please do not encourage non-content editors, as you did at ANI, as it may lead to confusion that they are helpful. Nobody Ent 02:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that supposed to be funny? Because it's not. It's one thing to troll Br'er; that's just quid pro quo for calling your participation in the project unhelpful. It's completely different to gratuitously insult two fine content contributors - Crisco has created 320 articles, 39 GAs (plus 49 reviews), 25 FPs, 2 FLs, and 4 FAs. Mark has 8 FAs among his 20,000 edits to article space. When you've sobered up, compare that to your 900 edits to article space and the fact that you've spent 40% of your total edits on the dramah boards. Please feel free to remove this when you realise that you need to remove your crass comment above. --RexxS (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page; I'm keeping it ;> *2* article edits so far this month, and /3/ last month. LOLWUT~! Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment RexxS, but I suspect this was an attempt at humor by Nobody Ent. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

we can do better — Ched : ? 18:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was funny from the beginning, nice term "non-content editor", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beep![edit]

Took William Robinson Brown live, want to clean up my mess and maybe toss the review tag? Anyone? Montanabw^(talk) 16:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it ;) - Once I'm here: the refs for The Metamorphosis should morph, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scribunto[edit]

In case you missed it, not only is Scribunto live on the test2 wiki, but I've partly Scribbled a whole load of our citation templates. We have United States, The Beatles, and Dnestr radar as comparison articles. Module:Convert needs someone to write it. I'm not going to take on the job of singlehandedly Scribbling every complex and large template in the project. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pingy dingy.[edit]

WT:TFAR#Arbcom case. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment at Kaiser that maybe all the articles in the class should go through at the same time, I have two concerns: people might start lumping articles together trying to get several FAs at once, and people might resent it if it looks like favorable treatment of Milhist. But I'm open to new ideas. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would have to be on a case by case basis else someone show up wanting every episode of The Golden Girls FAC'd at once. But on a practical level there should be allowance for backlogs for frequent FACers. Will have a look at the other... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're bored[edit]

The Taylor Swift article could do with a little help, with over 500 references, it's hit the mediawiki limit for templates and has stopped accepting new ones! I'm not sure of the best solution, but if you've got any ideas I'm sure they'd be interested. Worm^TT(talk) 16:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a ridiculous number of citations, like three for the simplest statement. Unneeded! Plus 9 dead links. Plus discriminant use of sources - some don't seem reliable, etc. The citing situation is a mess! e.g. this statement has four citations: "In May 2012, Swift contributed vocals to "Both of Us", a Dr. Luke-produced single from B.o.B's second album Strange Clouds.[267][268][269][270]"! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what a waste of time. gimme's gone and deployed that cite template fork for wikid77 LOL ;> And such a turd of an article. mebbe if tehy edit teh article enuf, she'll notice them. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

think so. glad to see you deployed in return. ridiculous article! whose running this place? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there are dupe links, crap links, endless trivia, and dead dogs lying on the front porch. got machete? thing needs a serious pruning. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are never ever ever, getting back to quality with that article... or so it seems. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[i didn't say it;] Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nepenthes‎ and Utricularia[edit]

if you have a chance, could you look at Template:Nepenthes‎ and Template:Utricularia? I tried to convert them to use navbox, but apparently I did something wrong since I was reverted saying that what I did was an "eyesore". Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "eyesore" snark was due to navboxes normally being full width and their having forced a per-content width. I've fixed-up the Nepenthes‎ one, which someone else had already reverted to your fixed version. I added style=width:auto; to give them the old look. I've peeked at the other one and you didn't seem to have finished that one. Will have a go at that, next. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you should be able to just add "width:auto" to the version right before the snark. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did that, but then changed it to 40em because when collapsed, it got really small (steve martin voice;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You stole my wanted username, Mr. Br'er Rabbit. ;> Matthias Methuselah Mortimer (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mayawati[edit]

Hi Br'er, if you have time/are interested later, I'm doing a GA review of Mayawati and your input on the technicals would be welcome. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did just fix^and a named-ref error in there, and tidy up a bit. It says I'm should have "read discussions on the Talk page before editing this article", but I didn't. I'll look, now, for the review ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to read the talk page unless your intent is to add something about the "shoe shine incident" or the "cash garland incident"! or even the "Honey bees incident" ... Many thanks to you for your technical fixies and usual careful work that helped push the article along to GA. Best wishes, -- Dianna (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our collab - quick check in[edit]

You'll see that I dumped on that talk page a source from which I'll be using many parts that need the curlies. I need to break and except for tweaking will be gone from this for a day or longer because I need to read the new material and conduct more of a lit. search. Anyway, fwiw. Thanks for getting rid of the trivia. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasted time[edit]

You have no idea how much I hate to waste my time with sterile discussions that will go nowhere, especially with people who never contributed to the article and won't ever contribute. --Lecen (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the great divides on this project, because that's exactly what some people are here for. The enjoy the argument nexus aspects. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is occurring about your editing at ANI[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you were involved. Thank you. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or not, as the case may be. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So many boxes on taht page ~! We'll see what the scrutineers come up with. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih ;> How's your friend Hector? Sincerely, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobody[edit]

So, convince me. You know I'll block in a moment if I believe it's him.—Kww(talk) 02:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no doubts. There won't be technical evidence, though; I noted him make an IP edit that's not in Nobody-ville, so I expect he's moved. But the behavioural is there in spades. Contra to what was said on ANI, I'm not going off what Jclemens said; rather I flipped a note into that world last summer which could be what got him looking.

You know I'm good at spotting socks. All that is needed is to comb through it all and present it such that the puling masses can't wave it off. Don't over look meta: contribs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

cutting ahead of other posts[edit]

When I replied here I first put a link to the complaint against Atilla. But it could not go trough spam filter because it was a link to word file. Then I clicked back in my web browser, removed the link and clicked save. Your comment was probably added during that time and somehow my comment was placed before yours. I am sorry for this inconvenience, but I really did not have intention to do it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tidy"[edit]

Could you work that tool over at List of films of the Dutch East Indies? That monster's code (75kb) may be a bit much though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HTML Tidy? ... which is what the edit summary alludes to. Sure, will go have a look. I was beating up on Harry S. Truman, the other day, which is somewhere well beyond ~~200kb~~ 150kb. There's ore to do there, if you want to help. That's a former FA that's getting {{rescued}}. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid of US president articles. Too much confusion, bandwidth, and edit warring. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

150kb; I was thinking of Taylor Swift. There's no edit warring on Truman, just work. It is unwieldy to edit. Fibre helps, which will be a while coming to you. But you'll be seeing awesome wireless options, soon. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I hope so... and I hope it's affordable. I miss Canadian internet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow, that's like every line in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were a lot of missing spaces ;) It's really about clarity in the editbox; issue are much easier to see when you can see things clearly. I tried several different wireless connections. "Flash" was ok. Forget the name of the other one. With 18,000 islands, they're going to skip a lot of steps and use mostly wireless technologies. Anywhere I went, there were a half dozen wifi connections available. Unstoppable ;) Short of getting half the country's IPs ranged blocked for a few days... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caliber links[edit]

You're linking to the wrong page; the content at caliber#Caliber as measurement of length has been moved to caliber (artillery). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice, I'm reverting all your link changes right now... as I said, you're linking to a page that inconveniences a reader by showing them less content and forcing them to click twice. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit warring; I was going to re-target the redirect. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of it as an application of BRD, and I don't really see the point of changing all the links back to LNN just to target the redirect back to that page... but ymmv, I suppose. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd fixed many of the long form "caliber#Caliber as measurement of length" to go via the redirect as they were snotting up structures such as infoboxes that are already messy enough. The new target is somewhat better, but still uneedful. I was reverting edit such as this one, which mean the onus is on other to discuss. I'm going to finish reverting you now. You want this undone, mebbe have a redirect for discussion talk. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly care as long as the links go to the artillery page -- I just don't understand why we still need lnn when "caliber (artillery)" is so much shorter than the old link. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point of such shortcut redirects is that they provide a centralised point of leverage for cases where the target changes. It's supposed to keep hundreds of articles from being thrashed when the content shifts to a new location. I noticed this change not by seeing it in the articles (minor, 'dab'), but by previewing an edit using a shortcut I 'knew' and seeing that it went to a page not related to calibre at all (LNN). This was all a case of WP:NOTBROKEN. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro III of Portugal[edit]

I was amazed and outraged once I learned that Qwyrxian closed the move request for Pedro III of Portugal claiming lack of consensus.[15] Twelve editors supported the move and only four opposed. I complained to him about how unfair and absurd was his action and that he should accept the will of the vast majority or at least reopen the move request. I'd like to ask you to share your thoughts about it on his talk page. Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong happens here a lot. See: (just the dialogue) on YouTube. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this. He is not a neutral closer. He clearly opposes the move request. He should be ashamed of that kind of behavior. Worse is to see him accuse me and the other members of the Empire of Brazil task force of having an agenda and of trying to bypass the rules. Disgusting. --Lecen (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think[edit]

I have not been paying attention to "Wikid77" edits lately - but then came across Template:Substr quick. I do believe all this "fast"/"quick" templates are done in good faith, however after seeing this, it makes me wonder if more over site is need for the creation and moving of these types of templates. If you agree do you know were would we go to bring this up?Moxy (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's skilled, but has effectively zero ability to work with others, and has no sense of caution. If this does not change, I will continue to see him as a net-negative. I've no energy to dig into those edits at the moment. At least it's a lot of sandboxes. I'd say getting Gadget850 to mentor him and require Wikid77 to go through him for most template realted forks and deployment would be a good avenue to pursue. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of monarchs of Brazil[edit]

I want to bring List of monarchs of Brazil to FL level. Do you know what is the best table format? P.S.: Why don't you archive your talk page? It's quite heavy now. --Lecen (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That {{succession table monarch}} isn't it. And why a table? Tables and lists are different structures.

You'd be much better of with a normal table such as Pedro I of Brazil#Issue, which I just fixed the formatting of. I can convert it for you, if you like. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it wouldn't be much trouble, you may change it for a normal table. --Lecen (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but Cristiano reverted me. I left him a note, and you might comment there. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strike it[edit]

Now. Don't you get it--I'm trying to help Lecen and iio and people supporting the move! I'm trying to tell you as much as I can how to do what should have been done the first time. I allowed a pretty much out of process immediate re-opening of the move, and when someone question Lecen on that, I explicitly backed him up. I explained in detail the kind of evidence necessary to comply with the guidelines. I pointed out why Necrothep's reasoning will hold no wait with an admin following policy. I did everything short of doing the research myself. I don't know what the hell your problem is, but you're both completely wrong and entirely out of line. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That an order? With support like yours, who needs opponents. You should note that I posted further wo/seeing this. I have disabled orange bars and only check my talk page when I care to. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you know what, apologies, I totally forgot who this is (forgot about the current name). No sense in asking for an apology or retraction here--a call for desysoping from you is pretty par for the course. Feel free to request removal of my bit at WP:BN, WP:AN, WP:ARBCOM, or wherever suits your fancy. Or don't, it's no matter either way. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines[edit]

<snip>Those guidelines are *wrong*, biased, and seek to cement a nineteenth century view of Anglicisation of the world. Guidelines are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive, and the way to change a bad guideline is to build up a series of consensuses that are counter to it and then use them to drive the notion that a new consensus in fact exists that brings the bad guideline down.</snip>

I have observed this, not particularly of WP:NCROY which I'm not familiar with, but in others, and seen Noetica say something similar but I've never seen it said so clearly. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to a lot of bullshite guidance. They're the wall I was referring to on Qwyrxian's talk, not the WalledGarden they assumed I meant. Far too many editors build some crap bit of guidance and then ride that hobby horse all over teh wiki. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Btw, thanks for bothering with the Vietnamese RMs. Evidently far more interest in Slovak name restoration, which is understandable. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

←Curse Johnny Foreigner and his damn stupid names! The sooner the the world wakes up and starts speaking English (as God clearly intended) the better. I'm off to move Billy Emperor, Liz Blackhead, Johnny Charles, Frankie Frank and Bent-nose Dave. ~~pablo~~ paul 08:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget The Rite of Spring, - no wait, I just told the author I won't question the title, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

;)

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dodo thanks[edit]

Thanks for all the edits over at Dodo, I have no idea what most of it does, but I'm sure it's an improvement. Cheers. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*I* know ;) It's all goodness. The poem tag is nice in things like those quotations, but it's a little fussy about newlines and references. The dropping of the citation details to the bottom makes the editbox much more readable and enables editing the refs as a block, which will result in better detail and consistency. There's room for further improvements, too... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012[edit]

This is the only warning you will receive for your Wikipediholism. If you edit Wikipedia again, you will be nominated for adminship. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll co-nom... maybe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes, don't fling me in dat brier patch ~! Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He edited, Mark. I says we wait until that there fish day, sees, and we give em a rabbit, sees. Maybe some colourful eggz too? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eggz like dis? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! We give 'em the eggz and da fish, then we'z go up to em and says this: "Watch Me Pull a Rabbit Outta My Hat!" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

I just fully protected Melville Island (Nova Scotia) for three days because of the back and forth reverting about the infobox. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common toad[edit]

As the article Common toad is a featured article candidate, I replaced all the hyphens between the page numbers of references with a group of symbols (‑) which gave a hyphen and prevented the text from wrapping. I was quite annoyed yesterday to find that someone had changed them all back to hyphens. I replaced them and you have since replaced the hyphens. If this group of symbols was wrong and shouldn't have been used for this purpose, it might have been helpful to tell me so. Then I might have been prevented from using the grouping in lots of other places. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That was me, both times. I didn't change to hyphens, I changed to endashs. The first time was marked just as 'clean up', as I did a few other things too. The second time I gave a link to MOS:ENDASH, which calls for endashes, not hyphens, in page ranges; most ranges of things, really. This is everywhere on wiki. Most browsers are smart about endashes and won't line-break on them. There's also MOS:HYPHEN, which suggests where they are supposed to be used. In the FAC, Nikkimaria specifically said "Ranges should use endashes", which is what I've done.

I certainly wasn't intending to annoy you; just fixing stuff. I believe I noticed this article on FunkMonk's talk, where I've been talking with him and Dodos and such. I also so it on Casliber's Cup page; might have been Amphibian, though. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand you to mean that a page range 67-89, using the key immediately to the right of the zero on my keyboard to separate the numbers, is called using an "endash"? And that the hours I have spent trying to put page ranges etc. into the proper format for FAC were entirely unnecessary? Anyway, the only other articles where I have been doing things wrong in this way are Frog, Amphibian, Bivalvia and Tree, and I see you have visited some of these already. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope; that's the hyphen ('-'), usually called the minus key (except by the mathematically inclined, who use a proper minus ('−') character). An endash ('–') is a bit longer, and an emdash ('—') yet longer. I type endashes with option-'-' (Mac). They are also available in the 'Insert' tool just under an editbox's 'Save' button; first item; second is emdash. Or you can type "–" or "—". Sorry you got off on a tangent.

I just cleaned this up on Frog; also very carefully cleaned up an edit by User:Citation bot that added DOIs and such. Bivalvia didn't have any, so someone else may have done it (or I did it earlier). I'll look at the others. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibian was fixed here and, just now, here; Bivalvia was fixed here; and Tree fixed here. Very core articles you're building; good on ya ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Wikipedia is a learning experience, especially if you are computer illiterate like me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've been doing computers for a long time; wiki for a long time, too. I took a whack at SandyGrouse, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hlist on mobile[edit]

Yo yo yo,

Doesn't look like horizontal lists get styled properly on mobile view. Any thoughts on who to bug to get whatever CSS is required copied into the appropriate style sheets? Would massively improve the output of basically all sidebars. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Man to speak with is Edokter. I seem to recall some issue with {{sidebar}} and hlist; might have been something close. It was on regular browsers, too.. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sfn etc[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your updates to Anne McCaffrey (some time ago now). I was paying attention and will use the same method on other articles, see Talk:Dragonflight#Citing McCaffrey for an acknowledgement. --Mirokado (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I do that sort of thing all the time. I see that page could go further. See my last few edits to Rise of Neville Chamberlain for how to push the rest of the cite into sfn/sfnRef form. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for fixie dust in ankle-biter space[edit]

cc to User:RexxS

Trying to create useful insult template in my sandbox, teach everybody a lesson. Difficult, need lots of coding! Wheelbarrow-load of fixie pebbles, please? (Page looks terrible, contains many commented-out shouts of despair.) darwinbish ^BITE 15:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

be right there... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<tentatively: style="wearing stout boots;">might be best to have the insult line wrap, some insults (infectious reeling-ripe gudgeon!) overflow the box. pablo 21:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

overflow: auto; gives the little users a nasty page widening scrollbar ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible project[edit]

It would be a huge project, but do you think you'd be willing to do some cleanup on Prosperity theology? I worked on that article before you educated me on best practices so it is a total mess. I'd like to TFA it sometime though. There's a lot of cleanup and polishing that needs to be done first though. No rush, you can put that at the back of the queue. 13:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It's well started, but still has some refs to kick into the bibliography, and the are a bunch of {{cref2}}/{{cnote2}}. Those have been deprecated for years, yet people still keep using them. I'll oppose and FAC that uses them, at this point. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, thou impertinent knotty-pated apple-john[edit]

cc to the other goatish rude-growing skainsmate

I've tried to change my templates, User:Darwinbish/looting, User:Darwinbish/teeth and User:Darwinbish/Stockfish to say [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|]] where it says "Darwinbish", to make templates more useful for all. But it won't take!!! It won't even save! Mean ole thing! I got the code from one of the silly "Welcome" templates, but I shortened it, because my templates aren't supposed to extend an invitation to yammer on the person't talkpage like the welcome templates do, with "[{{fullurl:User talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|action=edit&section=new}} ask me on my talk page]". I just want it to say the name of the poster (linked).

What code should I put? Or can't it be done? The change I'd typed in User:Darwinbish/looting wouldn't save at all. The other two templates only saved the other small changes I made at the same time. darwinbish ^BITE 16:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Check back at User:Darwinbish/looting. It should do what you want now. And to think that the WMF wouldn't give me a job because I couldn't code Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elen stole the cookie!! Naughty!!! Br'er fix supercode, then bite Elen, plz? darwinbish ^BITE 17:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

fixie dusted

{{subst:User:Darwinbish/looting}}
{{subst:User:Darwinbish/teeth}}
{{subst:User:Darwinbish/Stockfish}}

Be sure to subst 'em; had Elen bitten, too ;> Br'er Rabbi (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't request it as uncontroversial.[edit]

That page is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imnotkeller (talk • contribs) 20:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bullshite. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking turquoise[edit]

cc as usual

OK, I'm keeping my sandbox as is, as a monument to the ornate, the baroque, the florid, the gaudy, and making a simpler template at User:Darwinbish/insultspout (without fucking turquoise). Bishonen has already used a proto-version of it at User talk:Ched. That was interesting, because there's a problem that only shows up when it's actually placed on a (longish) usertalk page: clicking the white "here" link reloads the page, i.e. it returns the top of the page. Well, of course it does, I just hadn't thought of it before. Not a slick and fast way of getting multitudinously insulted, then. :-( But I suppose it can't be helped?

Minor thing: right now, there seems to be a little too much air above the header. I just don't know where the code for it is, ~~sorry~~. [Don't go all mellow, Darwinbish! ]

Another thing, especially for Rex: your insult template currently appears in both the header and the text. Naturally, it returns the same insult in both places. That's awright.. but think how way cool it would be if they could be different! darwinbish ^BITE 14:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Meh; taht's moar bore-ring. Sorry I missed this the other day. I don't read everything on this page ;> Looks like Ralph's moar page sorted the duplication out and on Ched's talk, I'm seeing two blank lines above the subst'd template, which is producing the 'air' ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Man, they complain about my talkpage being long.) Not that air! The red air, in the template. P.S. Am I right in thinking this particular template doesn't actually require substing? Though the others do? darwinbish ^BITE 22:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I'm looking for a mb ;)

This air?

fixed~!. Looks ok to not subst, but tat safesubt could prolly go. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That air, yus, perfect. Always avoid noxious exhalations of red air. darwinbish ^BITE 18:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Reference clutter in Bivalvia[edit]

Mikkelsen, et al Phylogeny of Veneroidea; Taylor, J. D.;et al, a molecular phylogeny of heterodont bivlalves and Taylor, J. D. et al Phylogenetic position of the bivalve family Cyrenoididae seem to me to be overly specific, adding nothing to support the statement ending in "...drawing up of what experts believe is a more accurate phylogeny of the Bivalvia", beyond what's found in the the first two. Otherwise it seems there's a bit of unjustified reference clutter. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You summarily ripped-out structure ({{cite journal}}), and then both structure and 3 whole references. It was the structural damage that I specifically object to. That FA consistently used citation templates and robust citation details. The DOIs, for example, are a mechanism to avoid link rot, yet you simply embedded current URLs. That's outright damage to the article. Don't do that.

If you feel the 3 other references should simply be omitted, best to take that up with Cwmhiraeth, who wrote most of that article and is likely responsible for those being used. I'll ping...

"Carter, J. G. et al (2011)" does include a lengthy list of coauthors, and that is cluttering up the prose. The way to deal with that is by using WP:LDR, not a machete. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During the FAC process the referencing of the article was the main stumbling block. I originally put Carter, J. G. et al. because of the lengthy list of co-authors but was told that those authors had as much right to an attribution as any others. I would prefer to leave the references as they are. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the structure via templates and full details are appropriate. I've just dropped the cites in those paragraphs down to the end to de-clutter the prose. During this, I noted two cites that were duplicated and have combined them. This is a design pattern and there room for much more of it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that and for your reply to my query about endashes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot more to be done; there are a lot of DOI'd journals, for example. And a lot more inline cites that can be move down out of the prose, making te prose more readable, and the cites more maintainable. The <ref> need name ="foo" before they can be moved (unless you want awful script-generated names). I'll have another go. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endashes again[edit]

I'm still a little confused. If I have a page range and create the dash with the first symbol on the "insert" toolbar, thus 64–67, have I created an endash? Or do I need to write 64–67 with the symbols – ? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either works; all of the above produce proper endashes. The long form is an html character entity; a means of typing it with plain ASCII characters. They're holdovers from the pre-unicode era and are typically converted to a proper ‘–’ later by a script or a bot. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in here – just wanted to mention that it's the small things in life that make a difference. Somewhere on this page, I think, I read that on my keyboard I get an endash with option + the hypen key. Life is suddenly much easier. So thanks for that. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

⌥ Option+⇧ Shift + the hyphen key gives an emdash (‘—’). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now life is truly good! Thanks so much! I much prefer keystrokes to what I've been doing (you don't even want to know ... ) I did find out by mistake that command + the hyphen is interesting. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

⌘ Command++ and ⌘ Command+0 are the other zoom keys. Zoom’s new; Features of Firefox#Full page zoom (about 5 years, now;). The more useful ones:

Mac keyboard shortcuts
shortcut	result
`⌥ Option`+`-`	–
`⌥ Option`+`⇧ Shift`+`-`	—
`⌥ Option`+`;`	…
`⌥ Option`+`/`	÷
`⌥ Option`+`[`	“
`⌥ Option`+`⇧ Shift`+`[`	”
`⌥ Option`+`]`	‘
`⌥ Option`+`⇧ Shift`+`]`	’
`⌥ Option`+`⇧ Shift`+`2`	€
`⌥ Option`+`3`	£
`⌥ Option`+`4`	¢
`⌥ Option`+`⇧ Shift`+`8`	°

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*me twitches*, *looks up ubuntu instructions*, "[shivers at sheer madness within]"[16], *me twitches*, *me tries it in opera, the second method works! First method only works in firefox/thud, plus ick, ctrl+shift+u+2013 o.O*, *me weeps silently*. —Quiddity (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit, i don't get how to hold down all these keys and type?

For emdash: Hold CTRL+SHIFT+U and type 2014 then release CTRL+SHFT+U!

For endash: Hold CTRL+SHIFT+U and type 2013 then release CTRL+SHFT+U!

And there doesn't seem to be a way to set my keyboard to do this. Is there a keyboard shortcut for Windows 7? (i've got a bunch of symbols in a text editor somewhere, but does life have to be so hard?) MathewTownsend (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@both; see “Get a Mac”. 00:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no! no! used to use them but way too elitist now! don't fit into little preferred groups of special people. don't feel comfortable that way. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would if, like me, you work a lot with texts in multiple languages. Apart from the euro symbol I believe all of those have been in place since about 1984; along with easy-peasy ways of typing áéíóú ñ äëïöü ø ß etc. I think the 'elitism' may be somewhat subjective. pablo 11:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for the handy and impressive keystroke table / cheatsheet that showed up on my page. It's one of those small things that makes editing easier. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precious[edit]

signature on today's featured articles

Thank you for leaving your signature of quality on TFAs, improving pictures with care for details and introducing references that are easy to maintain and thus reduce the ownership of articles, and for teaching a new generation of authors to do the same, repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (October 20 2010 Jack Merridew and 18 February 2012 Alarbus)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih, Gerda. Looks like a hat-trick ;) 07:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

had to comment this signature, rabbit from an empty hat ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main page[edit]

Hi. Can you assist me with User:Dr. Blofeld/2012 main page proposal. To start with can you note the headers of DYK, news etc and write Featured article in the top left. I also want the same colour and header style on the right side with the headers respectively

About
How to edit
Communication
Other projects
Other wikipedias

The symbols 70px inside the boxes on the right, made 54px and moved into the headers like the left also. I also want the main title boosted with a thickish border and polished up. I think "Welcome to" should be small and then a line break and "Wikipedia" in much larger lettering. I was thinking maybe gold text and frame and background colour like the FA section. Perhaps you could use your skills to come up with something elaborate. I think I'd prefer "the free encyclopedia and article count under the Welcome the wikipedia too. Colour scheme for the entire page I think as much along the lines as Encyclopedia Iranica as possible. Deep blue headers might work have a play around and see what you can come up with anyway. Also there is a scruff showing at the bottom and it needs aligning at the bottom.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

don't (edit conflict) me on my own talk ;)

I'll fuss with it. You should know I have a draft proposal of my own:

User:Br'er Rabbit/sandbox…

/However/, to to see it you need the CSS, which you get by adding:

importStylesheet("User:Br'er Rabbit/sandbox.css");

to:

User:Dr. Blofeld/common.js (yes, the .js, not .css)

My intent is to nuke all the gaudy header colours and to do all the styling in CSS, which is how real websites do it. It's all for naught, though, as the main page is perennially stuck; none of the proposals will be accepted; a few minor tweaks, at most. The whole notion of "redesign" is not even on teh table, as all the current modules are sacred. My own as some issue with the Monday-only TFL, which I'll have to look into… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know it might be a while before we get anywhere. But the fact that the foundation member how is a web designer has said he thinks a change is needed is something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That something Jorm said? He's got serious plans. Serious change will have to be by fiat. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'tis possible to get changes through, but it's a hell of a lot harder if everyone continues mixing "content and design" changes together, and completely avoids collaborating (as they did in 2005/6 which was excruciatingly painful, and as they did in 2008 which is why it went nowhere). I ranted (a few weeks too late) at Wikipedia talk:2012 main page redesign proposal#Needs Criteria and the larger subsection below that.

Basically, to succeed, we/you'd just need to make it slightly less ugly, add a useful section, make good arguments for any removals, and have nothing that David or Erik will object to. (David has been answering the faqs and problems and suggestions at the talkpage for years, and knows what's what, and knows what factors irritate the seething masses... )

I'd love to see a serious change; Which, yah, will only come from outside/above. However, fingers-crossed for a decent & non-painful-process change, by us, in the meantime. —Quiddity (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the current terminology; it's puling masses. So much of this site is retarded by gridlocked consensus. The pathetic main page is just one obvious example.

See my post at User talk:Jorm (WMF)#main page redesign. That's where fiat would have to come from. Effecting any real change requires rolling over objections and just doing it. Ignore Most Users ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that for the Scandinavian reverberations? :D Nice, but I think I'll stick with seething, for the dual insinuations of "pile of bugs mindlessly scrabbling", and "inappropriately & incomprehensibly livid".

I saw yr post via maryana's page, but hadn't tried installing. Have now done so, and see that ff/opera dislike something in it (I also tried the sep17 sandbox diff, justincase, but no change) (and chrome is identical to ff). Sorry I can't debug beyond that.

However, based on the screenshot and the separated structure/style perfection, I love it all (except for the giant background logo). HTH. :) —Quiddity (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not seen that meaning; but I like it. "Puling masses" is of an ANI thread for some months back.

I was just working on the sandbox page. I changed the structure and then changed the CSS, leaving a fair sized window where the page was broken. With pages built this way, the code and css have to be in sync. I mostly use FF and that screen shot was taken in Opera. I know there will be minor issue with MS browsers; there always are. The logo can be slimmed-down to about 75kb and if the dimensions were reduced it could scrunch more. The logo and the in-your-face star aren't the point, here; the separation of presentation and content is. At this point, the look and layout is completely controlled by the css and the markup is straight structural. I'd kept parts to tables because their syntax is familiar, and because of float clearing issues. I've got the usual fix in there for that and that can go by fixing {{TFAfooter}} to simply use text-align: right; Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ref cleanup[edit]

Resolved

Regarding this diff, is this recommended in the policy somewhere? I don't recall ever seeing this done anywhere before. It does make the wikitext more readable, but there are some disadvantages to this sort of cleanup, one being that it's more difficult to update the citations as information changes. • Jesse V.^(talk) 14:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I usually find that the more comprehensive and stable an article is, the more it benefits from collecting up the full citations into their own section. If there are not going to be large changes in content and no massive influx of new references, then the advantage of much cleaner editing text when making minor amendments is quite telling. Also as I often seem to reuse references in related articles, it's nice to know that I can just open the References section to copy out a reference for use elsewhere, but the benefit of that will depend on your own editing habits of course. Not everybody experiences the same balance of dis/advantages, so you'll have to weigh them for yourself. It's worth remembering that once the same source is cited more than once in an article, it will probably use named references anyway, so you'll have to find where the full citation is to update it anyway (if you're lucky it's the first one, but you can't always count on that). For example, when I check for dead links in online sources, I normally update the accessdates. At that point, having all the full citations in one place really does pay off. YMMV, --RexxS (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information RexxS. I want to do what's proper and normal. What do you recommend that I do? • Jesse V.^(talk) 20:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Rexx. SFN is the way to go Jesse. See Franz Kafka and Harry S. Truman for samples. PumpkinSky talk 20:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for those examples, though I think SFN would be convoluted if there were lots of different citations, as there is in Folding@home. I guess I didn't examine the policy pages enough. Looks like my alternatives are list-defined references, short citations or parenthetical references. I'll continue carrying out the first one. Question answered. • Jesse V.^(talk) 21:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)'d with you; see below; next would be adding more names to the <ref>. You do hybrids, such as Murray Chotiner. The extreme form of sfn is Pedro II of Brazil. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That's called list defined references and it's highly recommended. Footnotes properly belong at the end of the page (and endnotes is really a better term). Inline citation details clutter up articles something fierce and make reviewing them as a discreet aspect of the article quite difficult. By grouping them, they can be be better maintained, as can be the prose. As Rexx says, it promotes article stability as drive by changes stand out more. And don't underestimate the value of being able to easily copy sources for use in other article (ok, may not be as big a deal here, but it's been invaluable on the hundreds of ships of the Imperial German Navy).

I only move the ones that were already named, which would usually be those already used multiple times. Next step would be giving names to the others and then dropping those, too. Once the citations are organized as a block, it's much easier to shift to a system like {{sfn}}, as PumpkinSky is suggesting. I've done better than a thousand articles this way. If you look at my article edits, you'll see few section header references; this is because I mostly edit whole articles. This avoids most of the issues with the citation details being kept at the end. Don't underestimate the value of clear wikitext. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section edits are about the only disadvantage to this system. One day I'd like for a tool to be written that could fetch refs in the footnotes section and present them as clickies below the edit window if editing from a section link. Doesn't sound not-doable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:PleaseStand/References segregator is the closest thing to that, though like you implied it doesn't work for sections. • Jesse V.^(talk) 20:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but, yeah, but, no, but... Better to extend the WP:REFTOOLBAR. It currently supports this for editing full pages and an extension would be to have it not work off the editbox contents, rather the whole document even when editing a section. Seems an abandoned, tool, though. I'd enjoy poking him about taht ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't your speciality but could you?[edit]

Hi Rabbit,

I'm reviewing Islay and I can't make any sense out of the citations. Is it me? or is it kind of mixed up?

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They seem fairly ordinary plaintext citations. They could certainly be improved, but they're readable. Maybe be more specific?

I've seen a few other articles Ben has worked written; does good stuff. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's what I wanted to know since I couldn't manage to check the sources and some seemed inaccurate - just mistakes. But I want to move to that island! MathewTownsend (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Thanks for your help with the main page. Now to get them to actually change it to whatever.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:2012 main page redesign proposal/Dr. Blofeld. Can you put a gold border around the header like the FA section? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a looksee… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discretion[edit]

I think you should exercise more discretion when accusing editors of being useless. Some things have to take place in ways that you will not be privy to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Br'er Rabbit is correct. Why are you an administrator if you avoid your duty? I wonder how people would react if someone asked a police officer for help and he simply answered: "Not my problem, but the police department is a few block away." If you don't want to do your job, then quit. --Lecen (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse if that police officer had said that he regarded those requests for aid as "petty squabbles"[17] and "schoolyard squabbles".[18] --Lecen (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going by what's publicly available. A long-term user has been being trolled by a small group over requested moves for the last year, including by a variety of socks, and your office door was slammed in his face. If you've done something useful here that I'm not privy to, good, but whatever it is has 1) moved too slowly, and 2) not had positive effects that are readily apparent. And the quotes Lecen gives above are of unhelpfully dismissive language. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you fix it?[edit]

Could you fix all those banners in Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre's talk page and keep it similar to the talk page header in Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias? --Lecen (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; looks a mess. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixiepixie[edit]

You're good, Rabbit—editing as you and as one of your socks in the same minute! Kudos! Drmies (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Now that's amazing! I know about his other 42 socks, but I'd missed that one. --Ralph (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You count is off… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Pixiedust9900 isn't one of mine ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it quacks like a rabbit ... --Ralph (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just too much of a coincidence. Rabbit knows the fox is on his tail, so he's got two computers going simultaneously, on which he's making edits that no one would think came from the same person. There may be more. No, it is so incredibly unlikely that it has to be real. BTW, Ralph, how are you? I have the feeling you and I could put some beers away over a couple of hours and never disagree on anything except maybe the merits of the metric system or something inconsequential like that. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for such bother; just fire up another browser. And there are more ;) Br'er Rabbi 01:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm shocked that Afflatus would ever have been nominated for deletion. The horror! What would Whitman say? Drmies (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good thanks, Drmies - and if my hazy recollection of Wikimania is accurate, I think that's exactly what we did. And I seem to recall we even agreed on the metric system. Now, five computers in this room, and five browsers per computer equals ... ... I need more socks! --RexxS (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we did nearly enough drinking. Hey, it's getting colder here, it's only in the 80s in the daytime. You guys must be all wrapped up in wool already, huddled around your coal stove, keeping warm by passing gas, while the wolf is howling at the door. I'll keep you all in mind when I go down to the beach later today. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of RSN discussion[edit]

Hello, Br'er Rabbit. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History by P.J.Cohen. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lovely; an invitation to the Balkans. I'll have a peek; I've just been mucking about with the SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes[edit]

Hello, Br'er. I was wondering if you have time to modernise the notes and citations on Guy Fawkes? I am thinking of proposing it for a main page showing on November 5. It's got {{#tag:ref| for the notes and {{Harvnb| for the citations. Let me know if you have time; other than these two improvements the article looks okay. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of time; PoD will revert such improvements as on Blackbeard (where fn#107 is still broken;) There's also shite over that infobox… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for looking. -- Dianna (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help, if you crack the nut… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing at Baroque music[edit]

Hi Br'er Rabbit. If you have time, could you have a glance at Talk:Baroque music#Reference reorganization? I would like to make sure that I'm still on the right track with my comments (from someone who knows everything there is to know about referencing). Thanks in advance. GFHandel ♬ 00:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what a sprawling discussion. I fussed with the article and ec'd someone trying to do much the same. I'll help if I don't have to read all of that talk. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, you did the perfect thing: demonstrated appropriate usage so that others can pick up the ball and run with it. Perhaps you could have a glance in a week or two and see if things are still on track? Thank you for your help. GFHandel ♬ 03:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I watch everything and will see how that goes ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ND[edit]

I hope you didn't take that as snark. Your edit summary made me laugh, and I really really need to be gone from here for a while, so my edit summary meant "thanks BR; over to you". It probably came out way wrong though. FWIW. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the duplication of the Szadkowski 2009 ref as being off the proper road, which reminded me of Willie's song. Met him once, too, at a saloon. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Gorgeous. Best one yet - seriously. Theo polisme 11:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs etc[edit]

Re this edit of yours <-- check the wikisyntax, see, I'm learning! – thanks for pointing out the point of avoiding people switching domains by accident. I'll try to remember that in future. If you had explained your reasons in the edit summary first time round, I wouldn't have undone your change... Perhaps actually telling the other editors on their talk page how to link to other wikis would be "educational"; as it is, I doubt they'll ever spot the changes you made or the reason you gave for it second time around, as it's now buried in the Talk:Main Page history, never to be seen again - so you haven't in fact educated them... ;-) Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 22:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{diff}} and {{oldid}} are very useful. Such things (interwiki links, too) are *not* external links and should not be linked as such. People leak IPs all the time be getting flipped to another domain resulting in the watchful gleaning information and oversighters having to suppress things. And see WP:FULLURL, too.

The observant will pick up on such things; those that miss are likely hopeless and it's rather a lot of bother to teach the puling masses. Oh, and I've reverted you on “suggested”. None of that shite is binding and it's all shifting forward rather speedily these days. WP:IAR is policy and I get a lot done that way. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I spotted that. Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Should blurb formatting be described as "suggested formatting" or not? – you and I won't agree on this, so I've taken it to the talk page. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted that thread, too, and have already commented. I'm quite skilled at wiki and web formatting, btw. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:refs now redirects to Template:reflist[edit]

So it is probably better to leave it at {{reflist}} in William Robinson Brown? The main reason I ask is because I run AWB to fix typos now and then and it tends to change refs to reflist by default. Churn and change (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that; AWB is a mindless drone. I prefer using {{refs}}. Best not to mindlessly churn and change things. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But why is {{refs}} better when all it does is redirect to {{reflist}}? Is there some history behind the names? Also, since the "mindless" remark is offensive, can you please review George M. Stratton to make up for it? The psychology section gets pretty much no reviews. Churn and change (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd fail it for the shoddy use of . Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, isn't there a tool somewhere to change over to the indirect format? Churn and change (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K, found it: User:PleaseStand/References segregator. Churn and change (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the fixes. Getting rid of the page number issue gradually. Churn and change (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The segregator is for WP:LDR, which should be done after {{sfn}}. Name all the <ref> first. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K, finally done with {{sfn}} and segregation to LDR form. Looks much cleaner now. Churn and change (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Report of the National Academy of Sciences (Combined Google book for years 1924–28). Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1924."

is unused; you should install:

User:Ucucha/HarvErrors

It's really helpful. nb: the <ref> should have quotes on the |name=; it's proper markup form. And there are still three cites defined in the prose… {sfn} and [LDR] are much cleaner; more robust, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup; took out the unused source. Sorted ref tags and added quotes. Moved over to the {{r}} template. Put the 3 remaining bare <ref>s into the {{r}} format. Churn and change (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Hudson Valley Rail Trail[edit]

Hi. I'd like to start by thanking you for the edits you made to Hudson Valley Rail Trail. Moving all citations to the References section will definitely make it easier to maintain the prose and add new references in the future, and I'm going to follow this notation on any future articles I write. One change I reverted though was moving the portals and commons category templates to the Bibliography section. I know that having them in that section decreases vertical white space in the See also and External links sections, but I strongly feel that, from a purely structural standpoint, those templates do not belong there. I'm also not too keen on changing the date format in the references from YMD to MDY, I think it goes against WP:DATERET, but I'm not going to revert that because of the changes to references. If you don't feel strongly about the date format and it wouldn't be a lot of trouble, could you please change it back, or at least add non-breaking spaces between the months and days. Have a good one. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LDR rulz for sources wo/pages such as online; {{sfn}} for paginated works ;) See User:PleaseStand/References segregator for a handy tool. I moved the boxes for layout purposes, but am not much concerned with them. nb: Commons: is not an external link; it's "us".

The script I used on the dates does not support converting to ISO; I actually like them and believe dates should be internally maintained in that form, but people mostly hate them, and have trouble with them. I did drop a lot of nbsp in for you. I also restored the {{plainlist}} which is more appropriate than a raw bulleted list in infoboxen; and I added indenting in case of linewrap.

I was looking at Rosendale trestle and will see about dropping the cites there, too; it's best to name the <ref> before doing that. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually created a script a while ago to sort references that use ISO dates, User:Gyrobo/sortISODate.js. Maybe we could lobby for a new parameter on citation templates to store ISO dates for sorting purposes? Doubt it would get much use site-wide, but it's great in theory. I looked for policies related to lists in infoboxes, and it turns out WP:UBLIST does indeed prefer plainlists, which I still think is weird because it removes visual cues that list items are list items. Guess it's all about saving space while preserving semantics. I think you're right about Commons, but the guideline on external links and the commons template itself recommend putting it in External links. Probably because they're all outside en.wikipedia.org. That's why I prefer {{Subject bar}} whenever possible. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISO dates do have advantages for things such as software processing them. There's also the Gregorian issue ;/ There's a huge history to the current mess; the poor implementation of auto-date formatting years, ago, a poor ArbWorld ruling, and now we've a new bit of shite to edit war over.

I had a bit to do with getting {{ubl}} and {{plainlist}} going; {{flatlist}} and WP:HLIST, too. Bulleted lists in infoboxes cause too much line-wrap, anomalous gaps, and assorted other weirdness; seems you were addressing bits of that with odd spans and clears. Most of what plainlist is targeted at is inline   tags that give no structure and abuse those on screen readers.

Guidelines and /doc pages are frequently wrong; we let anyone edit them. Feel free to ignore them. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC) nb: eschew {{ubl}} for the most part; poor syntax and it's slow; use {{plainlist}}.[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Thanks for your help on Flat Bastion Victuallers (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're, welcome, Roger. Br'er Rabbit (talk)

Better[edit]

Definitely better, yes. I'm quite glad I penned the "essay", it came in handy for me to refer to for the first time today. :-) Bishonen | talk 21:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

And I fixed the other one you recently saw. Good to see you back in form. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WBFAN[edit]

Hi - The bot should be better now. The issue was the change to the heading line in WP:FFA that separates the actual FFAs from the FFAs that have been re-promoted (adding a space between the "==" and the heading text). Thanks for noticing. Please let me know if you notice any other anomalies. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. I take it the bot is now dealing with this (as the spaces are still there;). Sorry it tripped the code up. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There are a number of things like this the bot is sensitive to, which simply means it breaks occasionally. For this one I could add a comment to the FFA source, and have the bot look for the comment - but the comment would still be editable, so even this wouldn't be a guarantee. It's easy enough fix this kind of thing when it comes up. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

H class[edit]

I've been thinking the same thing for a while now. What do you think of splitting up the box as much as possible as I did here? The H-42 through H-44 would probably still have to be kept together in that section, but at least the H-39 and H-41 figures could be split off. Parsecboy (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The French page looks much more reasonable. I'll take a more detailed look and fix it up soon; finish the German cruiser refs, too. You see I did all of the Austro-Hungarian Battleships? User:White Shadows/SMS Monarch needs finishing up; the last few sections are still about the Wien; then is goes @ SMS Monarch. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just never got around to splitting the infobox for the H class. I didn't notice that you fixed the Austro-Hungarian ships, but then I only did a couple of them and might not have them on my watchlist anymore. Unfortunately, it seems White Shadows isn't active anymore - probably busy with school or something like the rest of us ;) Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to these; busy on ironclads and assorted cruisers. I must flood your watchlist. fyi, I've basically finished all the German battleships, battlecruisers, heavy cruisers, and lists there of. On recent one like the Hippers I did some indenting tricks on the infobox fields and that should be spread around to the others. Those are fast passes, though; I'll do whole classes at once. On the Austro-Hungarian ships I saw them as abandoned targets of opportunity; and they start with SMS ;> I'll split the H:infobox soon, if you've not; should be quite straightforward. Then I've got my eye on various French ships. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain to me[edit]

the benefits of the "new" ref/note system? Because as far as I can tell, the only difference between them is that we can't cite our notes anymore. Serendi ^pod ous 18:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The various new mechanisms are cite.php based; the old ones are hacks that should be beaten with sharp sticks. This is like five years gone. You can use cites in them, although there's wp:REFNEST, but using a harv to link directly from a note to source is a click shorter. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if the note format matters so much to you that you disparage the quality of an entire article on that basis alone, why don't you organise a drive to get these formats updated? I've already gone to the trouble to get these articles featured. Why should I be bothered to make any more featured articles if all I get in return is people moving the goalposts and then insulting my work because I wasn't aware the goalposts had been moved? Serendi ^pod ous 07:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to insult you, and I /am/ encouraging things like this be updated quite a bit; I do so myself, daily. Goalposts always move, especially when some of them have been set inappropriately for years. Eris should not have passed FAC using those templates (meaning the process should have prompted upgrading them, and then passed the article). If anything, I'm insulting the FA process, not you; it did not serve you or the project well in that era. And I'll be glad to help work on the article. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is a lack of communication between programmers and the wiki-gods (can someone give them a dead goat or something?). If sfn is superior, it needs to be made more accessible to the masses; particularly those of us who have minimal programming ability and have no clue what "cite.php" even means. For example, as I write this, I see a little {{}} symbol above the editing box. I click it, insert a dummy citation, and this is what it gives me: <ref name="name">{{cite web|url=some url|title=a title|last=last|first=first|date=2012|work=a work|publisher=publisher|pages=235|language=English|accessdate=4 October 2012|location=Dunno}}</ref> In other words, if the wikigods won't give us a sfn citation template in an automated form, suggesting that <ref> is still acceptable, then why should we mere mortals use it? It also gives me those silly quotation marks, which I think are ugly and often unneeded, and it creates an inline ref, with no help at the bottom of the page. So we really can't expect people to use sfn at FA if no one says they have to. I don't have the answer, but I see this as the problem. Montanabw^(talk) 18:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're in the wrong thread; this one is about the deprecated templates {{ref label}} and {{note label}}. cite.php is mw:Extension:Cite/Cite.php, which is the code that implements <ref>...</ref> (and {{sfn}}, which is simply a way of using <ref> in a shortened form). The {{}} in your toolbar is WP:REFTOOLBAR and while it's useful, it needs work. There may be a newer version of that in the works as part of the mw:VisualEditor. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care if my FAs make it to the main page. I almost never request that they be so listed. However, in the case of 2012 phenomenon, I fully intend to see it on the main page on December 21. Since I don't want you coming along and saying that an article on December 21, 2012 is not worthy of being on the main page on December 21, 2012 because the note format is out of date, please let me know how I can change it without creating a mess with the references, because right now I don't see a way. Serendi ^pod ous 20:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I nicked a bit of my comment at tfar that seemed overly broad on review. Templates such as those old ones have been out of favour for years but people keep using them. They predate <ref>...</ref> and that's where the shift occurred. The core issue is WP:REFNEST; you can't nest ref tags. But that's what you (and others) are seeking to do by having footnotes inside the explanatory notes. I'm not saying not to have citations on long explanatory material; that's quite appropriate. But nesting them, by other means, is bad form anyway. See Pedro I of Brazil#Notes; those notes have citations and they link directly to the Bibliography section. Eris is not using a Bibliography section while 2012 is although it's named References (not an issue;). I can help with these; 2012 seems a bit easier to get there, but mostly that's because I'm see Eris as part of a larger group of dwarf planets that seem to be doing things similarly. FYI, we've meet, before; I was User:Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1

An interim step on Eris might look like London Necropolis Company#Notes and references with the notes shifted back into the prose, which is a way to avoid a level of nesting. This is rather like how Makemake (dwarf planet) is doing things. I do believe in keeping long notes out of the prose, and this really would be a stepping stone to getting them back there. It ties into how all the footnotes are structured.

I'll take a deeper look at 2012 and see what I can do to move things forward. I do a lot of this, for a lot of topic areas. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Le ships[edit]

Ping. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih; I've commented there. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

common.css[edit]

Is there a good spot to figure out what some of the statements in your common.css file does? I can make out some obvious one, but except for the buttons, I don't know what everything after "div#mw-panel" does. Bgwhite (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To understand what goes on in there requires understanding of CSS, HTML, and the structure, classes, and identifiers used in pages generated by MediaWiki. div#mw-panel, for example, contains the various links that appear as a left column (in vector), and top: 0; moves it to the top of the column. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can figure out or experiment with the values, the problem I have, for example is what div#mw-panel actually controls. I was hoping for documentation somewhere. btw... I love your talk message when you edit your talk page. Very, classy. Bgwhite (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

View Page Source; Inspect Element. I don't think such things are much documented anywhere. There's always mw: ;) See the user page(s), too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ^^ What the rabbit said. If you use a browser like Chrome, you can right click on a wiki page and "Inspect element". This gives you a split display. By mousing over the lines of html in the lower part you highlight the corresponding element in the wiki page in the upper part, and you can see for example that the div whose id is "mw-panel" is the left-hand column (in vector) which contains important links, toolbox, languages etc. depending on which page you are on. It's useful to have a good look around different pages and recognise what they have in common and what differs. Try putting something like #mw-panel {background-color:yellow} into your own css to highlight the element you are interested in. You can experiment as much as you like with styling - which should help you understand the wabbit's css - just remember to take your experiments out of your css when you've finished, or you'll be wondering why you don't see pages the same way as everyone else! Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox, Safari and Opera have inspection functions, too! And there's Firebug ~! Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

humm, I never realized what that "inspect Element (Q)" did. Thanks! that's an enormous leap forward for me. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RxxS and Br'er. I think as the old saying goes, you taught me how to fish. Much appreciated. Bgwhite (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LDR policy assistance[edit]

Hi Br'er Rabbit. I wonder if you could please provide some input to this discussion (regarding removing reference syntax from article text)? I would appreciate it if you could tread gently there since I feel the user involved could be brought around to being a convert. Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide. Cheers. GFHandel ♬ 22:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fry1989[edit]

I'm sorry but I'm not going to support an indefinite block at this time. In my opinion the incivility is irritating but not especially awful and occasional disruption can be handled without the need for an all-out block. DrKiernan (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the history between you two. I'd seen some of his other history and was surprised to find that he'd been unblocked yet-again. I read the unblock terms and saw him well over the line and sought comment. It should get closed soon enough. I'm not fussed about the language, but am concerned about the fictional flags and COA. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"reaching further back"[edit]

Hey; just saw your addition here :). What do you mean by reaching further back? Is there some problem with the cutoff date for Special:NewPagesFeed? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find your new tools pretty, but not necessarily easier to use. Some of it is simply the newness and not wanting to stop and learn a new tool when I'm intent on another task. When transitioning to new tools it is best of offer the prior tools during a transition period. I believe what I was doing the day I added that was seeking to patrol a specific page I'd seen on my watchlist; I wanted a list of 500 pages in whatever namespace so that I could search for the page and open it with the 'mark' link. The new UI does not lend itself to that approach. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TFAR instructions and double standards[edit]

So you can edit Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions to make the instructions say what *you* want them to say in terms of image size and location, but when *I* do so to remove the word "suggested" from "suggested formatting" [helpful hint: the subpage is called "/instructions", not "/vague suggestions that you can ignore at will"], I get reverted by you coupled with the barbed comment "not adding Rulz by fiat, especially when it's an issue you've been involved in"? As you're obviously involved in the issue about image placement and sizing of TFAR blurbs, that strikes me as double standards on your part. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to have the MOS and site-wide convention backing my edits; MOS:IMAGELOCATION and wherever it talks about not forcing image sizes (albeit for thumbnails). The main page and its modules are poorly designed; Sue Gardner called it “homely”. IAR sez to fix it. fwiw, I consider you the most reasonable of those retarding these fixes. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me (for the blurbs that have images without faces) what is "wrong" about left-aligned images? MOS:IMAGELOCATION also happens to say "images of people need not be reversed simply to make the person's face point the text". I appreciate your fixes and general boldness at TFA and related pages, but I would rather you bring changes to long-standing conventions such as this one up for discussion first. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. What it says is:

“Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph.”

That's regardless of the image being of a face. A left aligned image displaces the beginning of a paragraph from where people are trained by a lifetime of reading to seek it. This isn't wiki-specific guidance, it's everywhere. Look in some books and magazines; you'll find few doing this. You'll find few left-aligned things with text wrapping around them even in subsequent paragraphs. It's poor design. Look at a fair number of the various main page redesign proposals; many offer right-aligned images, and much larger, too.

I've done a lot of this, for years. We can do better. The problem is a few who are reflexively reverting any change at all and claim that an RFC is needed; that's not true, it's just about derailing with no consensus to change as the goal.

For faces it would be best to select images that face the text. Reversing faces is a poor practise I'd rarely support. I expect rather more than half of the portraits we have face the text when on the right due to the prevalence of right-aligned in western page layout.

And see my redesign proposal; File:Br'er-Rabbit-main-page-redesign-grab-1.png (it's using the live modules, so not a full redesign, more a refactor).

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked to see it! The things you miss, being away for a few days! Thanks for sensible explanations! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{ygm}}. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Br'er-Rabbit-main-page-redesign-grab-1.png[edit]

I'm not sure what you intended here. I saw you placed speedy tags and then uploaded a new version, so I presume you only wanted the old version deleted, and that's what I've done. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re-tagged. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and re-deleted. G7 would be enough, you don't need more than that for your own file! JohnCD (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened? Yours was the only proposal I supported wholeheartedly! >.<

The "contest" is a mess, as we knew it would be, but surely a code-fix and pastel-removal, which enough people would have agreed to as a minimum-update, is a goodthing™ ?? Was there dramahz that I missed, related to it? —Quiddity (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had it <del>eted. It would have been a goodthing™ but it would take megabytes of debate to get there. Easier to trace the border of the Mandelbrot set. Nothing is going to change; the other proposals all suck as much as the current Main Page. And, yes, there was. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance I could have it userfied to my user space, so I can glean the discernible things I have regretfully missed? 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing this is a file I suppose there is no such option anyway, but I also suspect you would politely decline, regardless; perhaps? 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

more than a file. regardless, I do object. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, and whilst they're still in my watchlist, all red and depressing: User:Br'er Rabbit/sandbox, User:Br'er Rabbit/sandbox.css, User:Br'er Rabbit/Main Page header, all collated/explained at Wikipedia:2012 main page redesign proposal/Br'er Rabbit. —Quiddity (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nb: there are still some cute bits at User:Br'er Rabbit/common.css. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well this doesn't help any of us. (Do you need a sandwich board? :P ) Can you elaborate, or point to an essay, or narrow it down a little?

Also, regarding the wikizombie: I've oft lamented the lack of a {{user wikipedia/saboteer}} wikibox... might be something you'd be amused to make? ;> —Quiddity (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the clogs prolly hurt more than the trouts and minnows, so that might be a better way to take your idea. see my user page: eight years. the place has grown, hugely; the quantity of "the community", too; but not the quality. most of wp's problems stem from a class of the participants. Levy seems to enjoy the debate for its own sake and will leave no bit unpawed-over. /endlessly/. Main Page has sucked for years, and always will. 95% of the articles suck. Half of all people are of below average intelligence, and they're here. nb: the mantra from WMF since last year is move at greater than the speed of consensus because any large discussion results in no consensus. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a handy link or 3 for the "the mantra from WMF" point? That sounds like it might be a handy cluestick on occasion...

Yup, we're surrounded by people, and a profusion of them are irrational or selfdestructive or [x] or [y]. Nothing we can do about that, or at least nothing that won't come with an equal quantity of headaches.

Levy is just minimizing the drama in his own way - if a group of people present a good idea, with an explained-consensus behind it, then he'll back it up. And equally he'll prevent lone-geniuses from overruling it. He just wants some minimal paperwork to point at, when someone complains in the future, which they always do... —Quiddity (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“we can not continue to move at the speed of community acceptance.” (Gardner; start @43:00) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing hurts more than the rack of dried stockfish. Feel free use {{subst:User:Darwinbish/Stockfish}} darwinbish ^BITE 22:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

actually, i favour a razor; they don't hurt as much as you might think ;> (Len Cariou was better;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(bb had the tool, albeit the wrong vehicle ;) —Quiddity (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With it being practically impossible to effectively improve the main page, is there any merit in creating an alternative, dissenting main page; perhaps the stain page? 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there's this problem. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With enough coffee, any problem becomes an opportunity. :P

String: See Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. They're mostly old, and mostly ignored (especially since getting unlinked from Talk:Main Page :/ ), but that's where they live.

I propose we give teh rabbit more chocolate (or other smile-inducing bribes), until he agrees to restore the damned good/useful codefixes, so that we can decrease Main Page suck, at least a little. —Quiddity (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

m:interface editors might do it. but see Howard Roark ;). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to avoid that, so far. I'll stick with pining for the fnords.—Quiddity (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please please undelete, for all our sake? It's straw poll time, and it really would be nice to have a solid and technically-sound entry in there... —Quiddity (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one would even get it; they'd not see it because they need the CSS. The whole redesign is designed to allow only sucky proposals. All current modules required, for example. That makes it not even a redesign; it's just about fucking around with the header colours and other dreck. I only put a few afternoons into this; If I spent a week, I could redesign all the modules, add dynamic behaviours. Need CSS and .js to do so, and I can't edit those.

Random musings; ever consider what width: 100%; on an image would do inside a floated div that had a % of it's container's width set? (fluid image size;). How about :hover selecting a scale factor? (hover-over and the image pops to larger;) For easy dynamic behaviours, see my user pages. Be sure to purge many times.

See, for example:

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-web-design/

http://www.alistapart.com/d/responsive-web-design/ex/ex-site-FINAL.html
(the point here is to resize the window a *lot* from <400px to >1300px; the page layout reconfigures)

If you can get:

importStylesheet("User:Br'er Rabbit/sandbox.css");

added to the bottom of:

MediaWiki:Common.js

which will allow everyone to see the design live, I will have this stuff undeleted.

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I spent years reading zeldman and alistapart (late 90s till mid 2000s). A close friend wrote a book on CSS, and muttered at me the entire time, so I know altogether too much about the box model, and all the failings of inconsistent browsers (and how desperately necessary it is to check one's design on a multitude of platforms, etcetc).

Yes, the contest was setup by someone(s) with good intentions, but no understanding of how to avoid the disasters of previous attempts (I tried to intervene, by posting some concerns/suggestions in the top thread (and in scattered replies), but I was 3 weeks too late, and ignored). FWIW, only a "majority" of the current content blocks are stipulated as being required (and that's only to prevent months of quibbling over everyone's favourite/hated area ("Add featured portals!", "Get rid of [x]!" etcetcetc andonandonandon)).

Of course we can't get a blank page, that you could add anything to, transcluded into the main site's CSS. Are you trying to mock me?! It's too early in my morning for this..

If you undelete the code, then it might be possible to set up a temp MediaWiki: CSS page containing it. (On 1st coffee here. Options are eluding brain). At the very least, it will allow competent people to see your proposal (as I did, and appreciated).

At the worst, we can use (or extend) the written explanation and screenshot that you had at Wikipedia:2012 main page redesign proposal/Br'er Rabbit, to explain the clear and drastic benefits behind your redesign. The !voters might not all get it, but the technically minded will, and they're smart and numerous enough to merge your codebase with any tweaks that the !voters indicate a desire for. It's win/win damnit. A firm step in the right direction. Unless you take the ball and go home with it, in which case we all lose. -- The "contest" is snafu, but it can be rescued, if we have the resources (your code) and the inclination/energy (I can handle the nagging of people who will understand and care). C'mon, help us drag the design into a vaguely modern direction. Throw us a fracking carrot! —Quiddity (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you get it; read it and saw where it could have gone. I probably read your friend's book, if it was any good.

It was setup by John, who I know well. He was after professionals, including in-house. I helped John re-design aspects of the Wikisource UI, and I rebuilt that main page along the lines of my proposal; indeed, it was built on that. And John was my mentor, here, when he was an arb.

Why not allow me to show this to all via backdoor access to the site CSS? I know what I'm doing. It's not like it wouldn't be watched; task Erwin with monitoring; it's his job, and he knows me. I know I /could/ inject “pelican shit” into every page; I know what would happen, too. Or I could add to the design proposal /live/. Copying the code to MediaWiki:* would freeze it and it's only an early draft. I would have re-styled the individual modules, possibly added some, or dropped some, all of which requires access to the associated CSS. And if I were to change markup structure without adjusting the styling in parallel, it all breaks. It's a question of trust, which has been a theme of mine for some years.

The “Process” section says: Submissions by people who are unfamiliar with how to convert their mockup into a live redesign can solicit help from community members. I *know* how, but don't have the access I would need to do it. As-was, people were only seeing a static screen grab.

Nothing is stopping you from explaining the “clear and drastic” benefits of the approach I was pushing about. And why would I be interested in tweaks the ¡voters desire? You need to re-read the “second-handers” paragraph, again. Pre-dynamiting this proposal was expected.

Howard Roark: As the protagonist of the book, Roark is an aspiring architect who firmly believes that a person must be a "prime mover" to achieve pure art, not mitigated by others, as opposed to councils or committees of individuals which lead to compromise and mediocrity and a "watering down" of a prime mover's completed vision. He represents the triumph of individualism over the slow stagnation of collectivism. Bowing to no one, Roark rises from an unknown architect who was kicked out of school for "drawing outside of the lines". Roark goes on to design many landmark buildings, and rails against convention. He is eventually arrested and brought to trial for dynamiting a building he designed, but whose design was compromised by other architects brought in to negate his vision of the project. During his trial, Roark delivers a speech condemning "second-handers" and declaring the superiority of prime movers; he prevails and is vindicated by the jury.

Point Jimmy at this; he loves Rand (and I've met him; he knows my real name (m:interface editors must be identified to WMF; many know who I am; Brad as a photo of my passport))

A bit of irony; I'm allergic to carrots ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DRC Muzito Cabinet I[edit]

I attempted to convert this to something that would work with variable browser widths, but my attempts were quickly reverted citing accessibility. let me know if you have any ideas (or time to look at it). thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look... ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rova of Antananarivo and Rainilaiarivony[edit]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thanks for your improvement of the references in Rova of Antananarivo and Rainilaiarivony. That kind of thing is laborious and time-intensive, but it does so much to improve an article. Your contributions are not going unappreciated. Thank you. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Congrats on your Main Page day. I'm not quite done with Rova of Antananarivo, and will be back shortly. I got distracted by disruption on Obama's article. On Rainilaiarivony, that floating box was interfering with the columns. Glad to be of help/You're most welcome. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]