User talk:Fred Gandt/Archive 1

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Gandt/Archive_1.

Hi, I saw your question on the CPU article about reverting multiple edits in a single action. You can use WP:Twinkle to do this; it's a set of JavaScript functions which automate things like undoing multiple edits, warning users, reporting user and so on. It is quite handy. After you "install" it, it's probably a good idea to give the documentation a read and give it a test run in a WP:Sandbox SCΛRECROW 13:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could avoid having to install anything, pick the last clean version from the edit history, edit *that* and not have to learn any new software. But I'm terribly lazy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Grr..Grr..Go away" made me nervous so I'll respond here :) Basic tools have great value indeed. I am actually so tired right now I have no idea what to say (other than exactly what I am thinking as I type (this could get boring)). I like learning new software anyway. Thanks to you both for your advice. -- Fred Gandt ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously figured this out anyway. I do a lot of reversions but I haven't tried any of the automation tools yet - partly because this way I don't have to install things on every browser I might use to edit. True, the tools speed up adding warning messages to IP talk pages, but I'm dubious of their efficacy anyway. --Wtshymanski (talk)

Thanks for the "happy editing" msg Wtshymanski. I hope to be as low profile as possible but, I may as well tidy up where I see something needs tidying. How people stay sane trying to keep up with templates and vandals and ill informed people (took a few seconds to think of a polite way to say "idiots") is beyond me. So happy I'll be in my quiet corner with any luck. Happy editing to you too :) -- Fred Gandt ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Operating system: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you.--M4gnum0n (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Katie McGrath having a quick hair fix.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Responded at User talk:Eeekster and am attempting to fix. -- fg^TC 00:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We fixed the issue and the world is once again at peace -- fg^TC 02:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed your interesting "why?" template on that page and I have answered it the best I could. I hope it does not make the introduction too long. Best, --MathsPoetry (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I don't think it makes the intro too long at all. Thanks for responding. My question was more "Why 'used' instead of 'use'?" but more details are better in my opinion. I have changed to "used" to "use" since at this time there is no evidence of either being correct but, dial-up still exists so if ISP's did use PPP for dial-up I can't imagine that they wouldn't any longer. The whole page only ever references RFC_ so I have added the {{citations missing}} template in the hope that others (like you) will try to add some verification to the article. If I knew enough about the subject I might be more help. -- fg^TC 19:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I really understand why they used the past, because I doubt many more people are using 56 k modems these days. I even doubt there are still ISPs offering such connectivity. So I think that reverting to the past would not harm, and be more informative for wikipedia readers.

With respect to missing citations, I can only approve you.

Best, --MathsPoetry (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seen your last changes (removed "most", switched to "have used"), they are okay. --MathsPoetry (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I think while there are so few (Understatement: Only RFC refs) references backing up any statements on that page we shouldn't worry too much about the details (unless of course we know what they are). According to Dial-up there are still many people relying on dial-up. If this is true maybe PPP plays it's part and as such Point-to-Point Protocol would need resolving. If not true the dial-up page needs fixing. I feel uncomfortable having two articles disagreeing with each other; very un-encyclopaedic. If Dial-up is right and PPP was/is used to aid connection the PPP page needs to state unequivocally how and when it was/is used. I may set about hunting down some details tomorrow. For now I need sleep. *waves* -- fg^TC 22:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rather like the look of {{Cn-span}}. Just thought I'd mention it while we're talking. Off to bed now.... -- fg^TC 23:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Katie McGrath having a quick hair fix.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From wikia.com: "Non-text media on Wikia should not be assumed to be available under the same license as the text. Please view the media description page for details about the license of any specific media file". There is no licensing statement on the file page countering the CC_BY_SA 3.0 coverall. -- fg^TC 21:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred, I saw your message concerning the copyright status on the “other wiki”, I must sadly tell you that this aspect is very often ignored by users there. Hence you must assume they do not use freely usable images, which I find is very dangerous play, which is not intervened by the hoster. You will even often see randomly bulk uploading of content, which does not serve any purpose, since they are generally do not used. Sincerely Ochristi (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Things are taking a new turn as you may see below and elsewhere. Thanks for your interest :) -- fg^TC 17:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Press agents for subjects of articles, like the subjects themselves, are vehemently discouraged from editing articles about their clients (or their clients' rivals, for that matter), as they have an incredibly severe conflict of interest. Additionally, press agents as a class generally do not understand or practice neutral point of view or verifiability, two non-optional necessities when editing here. For further advice, send them to our guidelines on best practice for persons with conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Orange Mike. The conversation I had by phone (continuing by email) with one of the staff working for Katie McGrath (and many others) was quite reassuring. The agent asked me if it was considered appropriate for them to edit their clients pages. Also they are quite aware that Wikipedia frowns deeply upon self promotion and bias. In our brief but efficient chat we discussed the possibility that rather than they directly editing and uploading, I would do the groundwork which could then be reviewed (as with all articles) by the community. They are looking into their side of things (finding suitable images and ticking various legal boxes) while waiting for this discussion to reveal what is considered the best course of action. They are "watching this space" so to speak (and literally since they have the URLs). The agents only interest here is that there is no misrepresentation or inaccuracy and that images supplied are free to use on Wikipedia. There is no bad here. Press agents (I don't think they're strictly press agents. I dunno the correct term but they deal with getting them jobs and such) are people too ;) If Wikipedia wishes to have accurate and verifiable articles we should encourage those who have the details to come forward. As long as the pages don't turn into adverts, what harm can come of it? The immediate issue is finding images that have been granted for use by those with the right to do so. I'm not going to complain about that. -- fg^TC 17:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome ... I just responded to what I saw at AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You even answer your mail fast! Good to meet you Happy hunting! -- fg^TC 04:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Fred Gandt, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Fred Gandt.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've got to amend that massive template. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred,

You weighed in a bit on this proposal to archive shared IP talk pages at VPR – I've since updated the specs a bit, and I'm working with Petrb to design a bot that would help us (some first-pass bot operating instructions here). If we get consensus on the proposal, we'd take the bot through WP:BRFA.

If you have a minute, mind weighing in again on the VPR discussion? :) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly weigh in after some sleep Maryana (I have a tendency to ramble incoherently when I'm tired). In the meantime I can suggest something that might help. If you could provide a before and after demo page somewhere (Shared_IP_demo_before_archiving and Shared_IP_demo_after_archiving) that showed the difference between a typical ugly, shouty IP page (covered in old warnings, block notices and pointless arguments over long dead issues) and a nice, clean, friendly page with an obvious link to the archive(s) and a welcoming message for any new user of the IP, I think the community gathered at the pump may find it easier to grasp the concept. I am fully in favour of the idea myself. Those old warnings are no use to anyone and it doesn't take a genius to imagine the detrimental effect they would have on any new user; either putting them off or encouraging them to do more of the same. With for example the educational IPs; Kids love to show off and what better way than by showing what a mess they made or what a fuss they created? If the page is clean and friendly with no sign that there was any trouble before the show-off balloon gets popped and maybe they'll go to class and learn something instead of running rampage to collect some more warnings. Obviously nothing I just said is appropriate for the village pump (it would bring about more argument than support) but it seems fairly obvious to me. I'll swing by there (like I said) after some sleep. Consider the demo pages as a way to avoid WP:TL;DR. Night night. fg^t_c 22:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your comments! I was starting to feel a little dejected, and the precision and clarity of your thinking was really refreshing – you must've gotten a lot of sleep :) Will post a reply when I'm not tired myself. Cheers, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 fg^t_c 06:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An option to change the background color of the top banner has been added. It is shown in the documentation section of the template. Hopefully this is what you were looking for. Any other suggestions or feedback is greatly encouraged. Thanks.  Magister Scienta^talk (4 November 2011)

Thank you Magister! Awesome work. I think your template is by far the most welcoming of those I have seen. All the info we want to share but offered in a totally relaxed and friendly way. Great stuff. Keep up the awesome work Magister. Thank you. fg^t_c 00:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Fred Gandt/Archive 1! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Manually delivered. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you're getting this message because you signed up to receive updates at WP:UWTEST, the task force on testing of user warnings and other notifications.

Here's what we're up to lately:

• Huggle: There are tests still running in Huggle of level 1 templates, including a new template written by DGG. A full list is available here
• SDPatrolBot: There is a new test running on the talk page messages of SDPatrolBot, which warns people who remove CSD templates. (Documentation of the test is here.)
• Twinkle: We've proposed a test of AFD and PROD notifications delivered via Twinkle, which has been positively received. (See: 1, 2) This test should start this week.
• Shared and dynamic IPs: Maryana's proposal to test the effect of regularly archiving shared/dynamic IP talk pages is in its final stages. There are also two relevant bot flag requests: 1, 2
• XLinkBot: the herders of XLinkBot have approved a test of its warning messages concerning external links. Test templates are being written and help is most welcome.

Thanks for your help and support, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for replying to user:Drivingmecrazy on my talk. I felt like I had to say a few sentences to him/her yesterday, but got distracted, didn't save my edit, and went offline. You've done it better anyway. Materialscientist (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After our chat I realise you are dealing with a lot (I didn't realise before) and thought it might save you some time and energy. I hope I didn't tread on your toes. If I need to be told to mind my own business, please tell me. I just felt sorry for the poor girl?. fg^t_c 22:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. So far Poo hasn't made any more edits (I check every couple of hours per our agreement). It seems you were quite right (that they wouldn't come back). Only time will tell.[reply]

Yes, I'm spreading on (too) many tasks and often catch myself that I make mistakes only because of that. For the same reason, I appear terse with editors I revert, i.e., do not properly explain what was wrong. Anyone who helps with that is truly welcome.

There is absolutely no need to check that editor every few hours as it is simply counterproductive. Furthermore, the chances of return decrease rapidly after a couple of days (some blocked editors return after many months, but this is unpredictable). Materialscientist (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokes. And re Drivingmecrazy's last on your talk: Aww  fg^t_c 22:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think there's socks in play. I'd say if it occurs again today it would be worth a mention. It seems to be quite the popular thing to do in terms of the folks that enjoy targeting WP articles. I have learned, though, that sometimes it's just better to let them get over it on their own. Dawnseeker2000 23:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and watch we will (must be late. I've turned into Yoda) fg 23:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! :) Jaseper Deng made a protection request. Dawnseeker2000 23:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the heads up. Will save a bit of mess if granted. fg 23:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation in the Dispute Resolution forum-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the beer (although I'd prefer a nice cuppa tea). I just said what I thought. I never say anything else . fg 19:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{talkback|Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine|New_page_toy|ts=20:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)}} Just wanted to make sure you saw the recent comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! fg 20:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advice for my signature. I have read the signature guidelines and have fixed mine accordingly. It is people like you that make Wikipedia a better place. Much Appreciated. Best Regards, ScientistMohamed (talk). "There's real poetry in the real world. Science is the poetry of reality" -- Richard Dawkins 12:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and you're welcome. fredgandt 17:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{UserFacts}} Cheers,  M   Magister Scienta^talk (22 November 2011)

Thought you might be interested to see this. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk

I honestly think that is a waste of database space. Interesting though it is to us (arguably), the history of the template is neither here nor there really. Anyone who is interested can always look at the template history. As long as the template is currently good, who give a rats ... where it came from? fredgandt 12:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been deleted. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk 16:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal. Next time I light a candle I'll spare it some thought  fredgandt 16:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred, thanks again for your support. I just wanted to request since you've decided to change your vote if you could please strike out your "Oppose at this time" vote by putting <s> and </s> around it to avoid confusion when assessing the result of the discussion? If you prefer not to that's okay. Thank you! Dcoetzee 19:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry, should have thought to do that myself. I'm usually loathed to change past comments (they are what they were). I know you're busy so no need to reply. fredgandt 21:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're edit-conflicting all over the place! :)

If you use IRC, you should get on so we can coordinate our editing better. No worries if not; probably won't be able to get the test started till tomorrow, anyway, so you'll have plenty of time to revert all my edits, hehe. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry. I hadn't yet got a conflict. I thought it was going rather smoothly myself. As a child I watched ants saving their eggs when my Mother disturbed their nest gardening. I was impressed with how they worked as a team without any need to chat about the process or fill out any paper work. fredgandt 00:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, okay, just didn't want you to be confused when your formatting fixes temporarily disappeared and reappeared again when I added them back in. Carry on with your ant-like diligence :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have carried on, but my phone line went dead almost the second I saved the last message. Gave me a chance to watch a film and walk the dog so no bother. Gotta try and work out some complex parser function stuff for another template now. See ya soon no doubt. fredgandt 04:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reply [1] to your careful response at WP:VPT was a bit harsh (illustrating my frustration from elsewhere). After rereading today, Iprefer doing better & different next time and I thank you for your input, both in content and in zeal. -DePiep (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. fredgandt 20:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred,

Thanks for signing up for the Feedback Dashboard response team! Steven Walling and I are about to host an IRC office hours session on this topic. It starts in 10 minutes – if you're interested and available, please join in :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. fredgandt 00:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

um hi i gess um ya i am um new and i need um some help geting starid thanks um bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thane my love (talk • contribs)

What help do you need? fredgandt 01:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page fredgandt 02:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred,

We're currently busy designing some new tests, and we need your feedback/input!

1. ImageTaggingBot - a bot that warns users who upload images but don't provide adequate source or license information (drafts here)
2. CorenSearchBot - a bot that warns users who copy-paste text from external websites or other Wikipedia articles (drafts here)

We also have a proposal to test new "accepted," "declined," and "on-hold" templates at Articles for Creation (drafts here). The discussion isn't closed yet, so please weigh in if you're interested.

Thanks for your help! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding my signature at the Village Pump - one of the dangers of editing late at night<g>! jmcw (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm a night-owl myself and sometimes get to that point where all the little squiggles merge into a grey mass. fredgandt 18:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help with {{Millennium Park Map}}! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also no problem. Glad to (try to) help. fredgandt 21:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred Gandt,

Hope that so day somewhere on earth we shall meet in the same friendly manner in which we have interacted online for en:wp. I am very pleased with your friendly and welcoming attitude. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Hindustanilanguage  fredgandt 19:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is working great (along with a double tab and enter - no mouse usage). I modified it a bit to add "--" in prefix: User:TopGun/hotSign.js. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. You know you could add the "--" direct to your signature instead?  fredgandt 03:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I miss it some times on purpose, so this seemed better. Probably edit conflicts for others now when I'm adding comments without a mouse. Haha. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this website (amongst others) to get the keyCodes, if at some point you want to change the hotkeys, and don't feel like asking for it to be done for you. fredgandt 03:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had google search in mind for that. Thanks for the tip. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm glad I could help. The part that reads if((hot_sign_event.keyCode==220)&&hot_sign_event.ctrlKey) can be changed to include or exclude other keys etc. Examples:

if((hot_sign_event.keyCode==220)&&hot_sign_event.ctrlKey&&hot_sign_event.altKey) // Ctrl+Alt+\
if((hot_sign_event.keyCode==220)&&hot_sign_event.altKey) // Alt+\
if((hot_sign_event.keyCode==223)) // `

223 is ` (whatever the hell that is). So you could therefore only need to press one key, but that one key would have to be one you never wanted to use for its true purpose. Anyway, there's options. Let me know if you need anything again. fredgandt 04:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, the "window key" is good for nothing in Linux by default (and I usually keep it that way), thinking of using it as a one touch sign later. Sure. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think this[2] was evil at all.

I was wondering about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&diff=468907694&oldid=468907364

The idea is for the reader to look at the page UI but can one safely link to the category like this?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To link to a category page without adding the category to the page we use "[[:Category:Example]]" (note the colon). This is the same for links to files (without showing the actual file). fredgandt 08:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks 84.106.26.81 (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Those [x], [+], and [-] are butt ugly! fredgandt 09:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you try and figure out what's happening at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Search box results? Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded there. fredgandt 09:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Fred Gandt for his incredible service on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Thank you for continually assisting so many editors with their technical difficulties. Your selfless, untiring dedication to our project is what makes Wikipedia so strong. Igottheconch (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got any ideas, Fred? Goodvac (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what your recent edit was about?? thanks76.218.104.120 (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not see the difference? The effect should be quite obvious on the page. fredgandt 08:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes i see the difference in the letters, much bolder and clearer. I meant your edit summary--were you making fun of today's display there of my inept editing skills?--Rich Peterson76.218.104.120 (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the slightest. I was just saying "Whoot!" 'cause it worked, and pointing out that I can't do long division without taking my shoes off. I'm not a mathy type (even though I write code), so am not the best person to make the changes, but they are the sorts of changes that need to be made to clean the article up. You're going to have to learn how to use <math>...</math> tags by following that link to the mathy peoples page. If I did the editing, I wouldn't know if the results were correct. Also, I have the attention span of...ooh! Look, a squirrel!! fredgandt 08:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok no problem, in fact i appreciate your sense of humor.--Some people have seemed to ridicule my edits in the past, which is why i get hypersensitive. Thanks,76.218.104.120 (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are snobs in all walks of life. Do your best and carry on. It's good that you're doing the work. I'm going to drop a massive lump of Welcome template on your talk page. Don't be alarmed; the shockwaves will reduce over the next day or two  fredgandt 08:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruff ruf, herr rraawff rarr rraff RRaf raf ruFF RuffFrrruf, herr rraawff mmmm rarr rraff RRaf raf ruFF RuffFrrruf, herr rraawff rarr rraff RRaf raf ruFF MMMmmMMmmmm rRuffFrrruf, herr rraawff rarr rraff RRaf raf, ruFF Mmmm RuffFrrruf, herr rraawff rarr rraff RRaf raf ruFF RuffFrrRuff ruf, herr rraawff rarr rraff RRaf raf ruFF RuffFrrruf, herr rraawff mmmm rarr rraff RRaf raf ruFF RuffFrrruf, herr rraawff rarr rraff RRaf raf ruFF MMMmmMMmmmm rRuffFrrruf, herr rraawff rarr rraff RRaf raf, ruFF Mmmm RuffFrrruf, herr rraawff rarr rraff RRaf raf ruFF RuffFrr !

Just in case you didn't learn doggie too, I'll include a translation.

The div text looked fine, what went wrong there in your opinion ? although no box as it was at the time of writing gives 3 columns, a sinlge column in the boxed section is the most logical choice. The additional columns normally truncate the length of the section on the page, which is no longer required when addressed by a box. At that point, the reader is looking at the reference in question and those sequentially preceding or following, rather than anything in the adjoining column. So logic dictates a single column. Penyulap _talk 00:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness I have a strange sense of humor. Penyulap _talk 02:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. I have a pretty odd sense of humour too. As for the scrolling div; when I saw it, it was quite ugly. So I decided to add a little styling to try and improve it. What I added, made it worse (functionally, not aesthetically), so I quickly reverted. I'm afraid Anomie and Edokter are quite right. Scrolling divs may have their uses, but to contain references is perhaps not the best use. There is no good reason for them to be hidden, either partially or otherwise. If my first thought was about Wikipedia instead of about css styling and html, I'd have known better than to leave it there at all, let alone trying to build on it. But my first thoughts were all about code (they usually are) and I dove in head first, without thinking. The article is better off without the scrolling div idea.

You could however run a user script that would create a scrolling references section for you on all pages you viewed. That way, nobody else sees the scrolling references, just you. fredgandt 06:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here, put:

div.reflist
{
	overflow:auto;
	max-height:200px;
	border:1px solid #808080;
}

in your common.css, and all reflists will be contained in scrolling divs. fredgandt 06:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred, with regard to your proposal here, I've written up a draft of what could be a formal proposal here. Can you have a look and let me know if that's something we could go ahead with? Feel free to edit it as you wish, note on the talk page, etc. I rhink it's simple enough that it might actually get done fairly quickly, as opposed to "wait until the new interface comes out", and the indication is that we can get buy-in from the en:wiki community. The next step would probably be to run it past, say, de:wiki and fr:wiki to get more global support, then start looking for a dev. I would really love to have this function. I'll ask Anomie to comment too. Franamax (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're kind to think of me.

Wow! Very organized looking. I like "Bask in glory as thanks pour in, Or blame someone else". I say "Go for it!". You know far better what you're doing than I. I'm merely an enthusiastic amateur, trying to learn as I go. I'll of course Support the proposal. fredgandt 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred. Actually nobody is discussing welcoming long-term users in that thread, and in such discussions it helps to stay on topic. That said, like you I agree there would be no sense in it - I was first welcomed after three months and several hundred edits, and like an idiot, I really believed it was a personal message - I didn't know about templates in those days - but it did make me feel kinda fuzzy and warm at the time. There is even a template for a 'belated welcome'. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was just stating my relaxed attitude to it all. not trying to turn the conversation. I really think it's a matter of common sense. The conversation looks far from welcoming, so I'm staying out of it. fredgandt 02:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. You still have two names when you change your name or usurp ;) --lTopGunl (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fred Gandt. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical).
Message added 21:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

causa sui (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred,

thank you for your response in help desk. margin=0 resolve the question. About accesibility, do you know other solution without accesibility issues?

The true problem is {{Communes of Chile}}. There is a lot of redundant information because there are only 14 regions but the region is repeated for every comune and the same with the provinces: the province is repeated for every comune. Therefore I think the solution is to write the region and its data in the top row of the table and then a imbedded table with the provinces. The name and data of the province in the top ... etc.

I thought in {{collapsetop}} and {{collapsebottom}} but it doesn't look better.

Any idea?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purely my opinion: I don't think accessibility is too much of a problem, but style should be consistent across the site. I'd imagine the best advice would come from a WikiProject for geopolitical articles. Maybe start at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Geographical and see if any current project has any guideline pages for this sort of thing. Then if you can't find any guidance, you might want to consider that there is a gap where a new WikiProject could be, and start it. fredgandt 19:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:

1. We're happy to say we have a new round of testing results available! Since there are tests on several Wikipedias, we're collecting all results at the project page on Meta. We've also now got some help from Wikimedia Foundation data analyst Ryan Faulkner, and should have more test results in the coming weeks.
2. Last but not least, check out the four tests currently running at the documentation page.

Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to work your magic again on this article? I added some stuff that I think needs expert formatting. Thanks in advance!198.189.194.129 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about magic, but thanks. I've re-read MOS:MATH and applied what I believe is the correct formatting for the article. Apparently PNG is discouraged for inline equations, so no use of <math></math>. fredgandt 22:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oops!! Equations r now missing.-Rich198.189.194.129 (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. The technical issue was me forgetting about (not using) raw equals signs in templates (bad back and long day). I fixed that. Is the maths ok? fredgandt 22:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

looks great, thanks198.189.194.129 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. My pleasure. Shame I have no clue what any of it means O.o (I could study it but I am already studying too much else and my brain would pop). Maybe I'll see you around. Take care. fredgandt 22:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fred Gandt. You have new messages at ColinFine's talk page.
Message added 21:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.[reply]

ColinFine (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fred Gandt. You have new messages at WP:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Tequila (song).
You can remove this notice at any time.

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fred,

Because of my lack of technical skills, I'll explain the entire purpose for this. I am working at the Spanish Wikisource, where technical support is nonexistent. As a en.wp native, I occasionally come to ask for help for sister sites where development is beyond my ability.

For readability at the site, we are working on a few appearance modifiers. User Candalua has imported over a text size modifier, and I tried bringing over a layout option somewhat similar to the one at the English wikisource. If you see at en.ws, there is an option under "Display options" which lets users flip through Display 1, 2, and 3. At the Spanish Wikisource, we use the all of our images with the "frameless" parameter. This is in order to have users decide which image width they would prefer. Using "upright" we have a relative parameter for image width. You can see it being employed here: [3]. The goal is to have users (even if they are not logged in) have the ability to alter the image width size per the navigation row "Opciones de apariencia" in the same way that it is currently set up with "Text size: + -" We hope to have a similar parameter "Image width: + -" This will change the thumbnail parameter. Contingent upon these modifications, if we set the body of the work to your "thumbnail table" parameter, we can get the width of the image to coincide with the width of the displayed text, like this: File:Esws page width example.jpg This optimizes the appearance as it was in the printed page itself. So, ultimately under "Appearance options" there will be three modifiers:

Text size: + -

Image width: + -

Page width: Full/limited

To see exactly what I am talking about so far, you can check out my common.js file at the site: [4] Currently, it lacks the ability to alter the image width, and can alternate between full page width, and 220px (which matches the default "frameless" parameter)

If you have the time to help us out with this, it would be greatly appreciated. I do however understand that this is beyond the scope of the English wikipedia and if you consequently declined. Either way, thank you for your help. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okies. I'll have a good look into it when I have finished another script I'm working on. Sounds quite involved but that doesn't mean it can't be done. I'll get back to you. fg^t_c 11:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fred - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten this. I am still working on another script. I'll be back. fg 18:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still not forgotten, but getting further away. fredgandt 08:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Template:AFC redir/doc, I think you'll find that {{db-g8}} is better than {{db-t3}} for deleting /doc pages where the main page has already been deleted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! I was seriously just thinking about those . I'm waiting to see how the first round of additions goes before getting stuck into the list on Special:UnusedTemplates. Thanks for the advice. I'd like to be able to do something useful. I'm not very well suited for writing articles , so I'm making user scripts and templates instead.  fredgandt 12:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates which is worth a look as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the former compiled from the latter? I'll sure take a look at them both, if I find my previous efforts are considered useful/appropriate. I'm waiting for either angry messages or deleted templates. Depending on which I get, I'll consider my next move. fredgandt 12:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special:UnusedTemplates shows all templates that are unused, where as Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates misses out /doc , /sandbox , /testcases , a few other cases and substitute only templates. The complete list of excluded templates is in Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates/Configuration. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cripes! So erm, if I were going to do something useful, what would you recommend? All 3 lists or just the last one? Is tagging unused templates even useful? fredgandt 12:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the lists there is quite a lot of them. My personal view is that most of them don't do any harm just sitting there, so it's not worth deleting them all. However, there is also quite a bit of rubbish in there as well. If you spot templates that are mostly duplicates of others then those are definately good to get rid of. This can be done with {{db-t3}} but also can be just as easy to replace with a redirect to the other template. If they are really broken and rubbish then can possibly nominate them as a test page with {{db-g2}} but that still leaves a lot more that then need to go to WP:TFD.

Something else that may be of interest to you is Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized templates which listed templates without any categorisation. I do some of that myself sometimes but it can take a bit of work finding a suitable category, so tend to do groups of templates rather than just single ones. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thanks for taking the time to explain. What you've said makes perfect sense. I'll take a good look at what's in all the lists and try and figure it out from there. If categorizing is perhaps more useful than tagging for deletion, it might be better to start there. I can imagine causing less friction doing that too. I spent a couple of hours some time back, trying to tidy up a bunch a stubs about different paper types. Trying to find the correct stub took more time than tidying the articles! There are hundreds of stub categories. fredgandt 13:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're ever looking for something to do, would you look at User:WhatamIdoing/Temp.js and tell me if it would be difficult to make it work again? It broke when we switched from Monobook to Vector. (Half of it [the part that displays the assessment on the article page] just needs to be deleted, as it duplicates what's now a gadget.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To save me having to test in the dark: what is the purpose of the script? Does it still work if imported in monobook.js or common.js when using the monobook skin? What is the gadget that replaces some of the script? fredgandt 22:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The goal is to semi-automate recording WikiProject assessments. It places two pop-up menus on the article's page, just below the title. The first lets you select a WikiProject from your defined list (you can see the list I defined at User:WhatamIdoing/monobook.js). The second lets you set a priority level. Then you click a button that indicates the quality (Stub, Start, C, etc.).

Clicking the button takes you to the talk page, where it finds (if present) the identically matching (not redirects, sadly) template for the WikiProject you selected, and fills in or updates the parameters. Alternatively, if no matching template is on the talk page, then it adds it. It appears to play well with {{WPBS}} and similar templates. You have to save the page manually (which gives you a chance to check for redirects to the template you're adding or other problems).

Last I checked, it still worked if I switched back to Monobook, but it's been a while. (For a while, I was switching back and forth, but that gets cumbersome.) I can try again and let you know the current status.

Part of it duplicates the Preferences:Gadget (Appearance) "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article" item. The script provides quality/priority assessment; the gadget displays only quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokes! I'll have a look and see what I can do. No hurry; no promises. fredgandt 18:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the answer is "no". I switched back to Monobook and it's not coming up.

I agree: no hurry and no promises. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Knowing that gives me grounds to think there may be a fair number of major hurdles. Then it may be something little like a change in a global variable name. I'll drop you a note on your talk when I have anything worth saying to say. fredgandt 21:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should know about WP:REMOVED. Toddst1 (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should review WP:Rollback. You appear to be misusing the privilege on JavaScript. The edits you are reverting are not unambiguous vandalism - in fact you appear to be involved in a petty edit war there - a major no-no with rollback. Toddst1 (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's just the kick in the butt I needed. fredgandt 06:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you've chosen to react that way to constructive feedback, "Please leave work you don't know how to correctly do, to those who do", as you said here. I've removed rollback privileges from your account. Toddst1 (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the troublesome period of activity immediately preceding and inspiring the above. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fred's a sharp editor and you kick him like this? No wonder the project is failing. Alarbus (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are kind to stick up for me, but frankly he's right. I should have let the article get slowly ruined while fussing about with reading up on the mountains of related policies. Shit! Usually I'm quite good at sarcasm. Just not feeling up to it right now. I guess being insulted has knocked the wind out of me. My track record will exist as long as the servers are fuelled. At least I helped a bit. Oh and btw, I have read WP:DIVA and if anyone feels like suggesting that might be me; check my contribs. Work out for yourself if I should feel insulted and abused. Seriously? I might need to read WP:ROLLBACK. You think I haven't? I read it all before requesting the tool. See for yourself how frequently I've used it. Try looking into an editors history before slamming their efforts. Physically shaking with anger.

You know WMF handed out barnstars to everyone who commented on the last SOPA !vote? Barnstars from the foundation for contributing to that farce, and warned that you're misusing a tool you've hardly used (and actively avoided using) while trying desperately to protect an article from a crazed loony.

Ah whatever! My contribs are all the proof I need that I did my best.

You know why I am reacting so badly to this? I do. fredgandt 08:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look too deeply at the Javascript editing. That's not what's important. You understand "rollback"? No one needs it, it's just fake a bit that amounts to a brass ring. Your editing has spoken well for you. I've seen plenty of posts by you to know that you're worth having around. And you must have seen that Toddst1 called my post on his page 'trolling'? Presumably due to the Unicode “barnstar” but I'll say it again, here: Toddst1 has hurt the project.

Take a few days to think and consider that it's the nature of the internet to route around damage (and I used this phrase in another context, just the other day, but no matter). There is lots “damaged” here; go around it, leave it behind. Someone else will help it (if it's worth helping), and eventually stuff that has lost its way will be seeking to catch up with reality. Best wishes, Alarbus (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Losing the tool isn't the problem. It's handy when things are moving fast and mostly (obviously) when undoing multiple edits, but owning it doesn't mean a damned thing to me. What gets me is that I am the bad guy??

As far as I'm concerned, repeatedly breaking content whilst ignoring advice not to, is basically vandalism. If a conversation has already been started on the subject and one party chooses to ignore it and carry on breaking things, that person is both edit warring and vandalising. I tried to do it nicely; Christ! I even fixed their dubious first edit. How's that for good faith? How many times do we have to pussy-foot around before accepting that the user is not going to read the advice/warnings and just get on with protecting the article? JavaScript is hardly a fringe subject, and is thus likely to have quite high traffic. Better in my view to protect the content than play nice with someone who clearly has no idea what they're doing. Ironically, the page was damaged (for the second or third time in a row) while I was reading the instructions on how to report them for edit warring, and I wondered how I was supposed to undo their destruction without being the other half of the war. I mean, how messed up is the system if in order to report a user for edit warring, you have to be involved in an edit war? It's the bullshit of it that I'm pissed off about. I've done nothing but try to help in any way I can, and because of the unwritten policy of policy over content I get a slap on the wrist.

Here's the sit in a nutch. I am fuming; not because an admin told me off, but because that admin is wrong, and admin should know better. Support the IP who edit wars to break the content of a popular article while suggesting the editor trying to protect the article is abusing his privileges? Screw policy! Try using logic. Which is better? Editors who anonymously break content and refuse to respond to requests to stop, or editors with nothing but a clean track record who spend most of their time trying to help others?

Here's the giggle. I was just about to start adopting. After spending a fair bit of time recently at the help desk, I realised that half the problems we deal with could be avoided if only new users had some guidance. Apparently it's a good job that never happened, or I'd have been training the next generation of policy dodging privilege abusers!!

As far as I'm concerned, nothing but a desysopping or a very long and detailed apology will change my mind. This is purely a matter of principal. fredgandt 10:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad you're taking this badly Fred, I hope you take a few days off to recharge then come back, 'cause I think you do pretty good work.

In this specific case, it might not be what you want to hear, but it looks to me like Toddst1 was right. You were abusing rollback and if you do that, you lose it. It's only for blatant vandalism of the kind that anyone reasonable looking from the outside can agree is blatant vandalism. Basically, when no edit summary is needed. So Toddst1 gave you a warning, and when you didn't respond positively, removed the bit. You can always ask for it back, it's made to be easy-come, easy-go.

As far as your general frustration about keeping quality up on articles, yes it is very difficult when someone starts insisting on making changes that don't improve an article. But we have processes for that, they do work eventually, and except for things like defamation and copyright violations, if an article sits in bad shape for a day, it's really not that big of a deal. The best way to protect yourself from charges of edit-warring is to open a talk page thread outlining the problem with the edits you reverted, ask the editor on their user talk to participate there if they keep insisting on their version, wait for other people's comments, and if necessary, make further reversions as "rv, please discuss on the talk page". In this case I see several other editors were agreeing with you anyway, so it was pretty clear who was doing the warring. But that talk page step was missing.

And it looks to me like you just got caught up in the situation. Your first message on the IP talk page was snippy (insulting actually) and users are allowed to remove warnings. We check for that when AIV reports come in, if the editor thinks they're avoiding scrutiny by blanking, they should think again.

So please, cool down and remember it's not the end of the world. You made some mistakes, but we all do that, and they weren't big huge mistakes. Toddst1 made a call on the situation at hand. That doesn't mean that all your other good work is not appreciated. Think it over and if you want to ask for rollback again, I'll go with you to Todd's page and endorse the request - if you can bone up on just how few places rollback can actually be used. Hope to see you again in a while! Franamax (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer Franamax (really). Clearly my judgement is floored, so best to not exercise it. You're right; not the end of the world. Being accused of edit warring and abusing privileges, is just not the sort of thing I do react well to. I could have taken more time to explain to the IP why their repeated reversions... Nope; accually, I couldn't. So that's that. My judgement sucks and I can't be trusted. Sounds fair. Gonna do something else. However I look at this, I see an editor not taking the time to think before acting, and thus repeatedly doing what isn't best for the article. Someone who doesn't know what they're doing, but insists on doing it anyway. The question is: Which of the two editors involved am I describing? I said it above: policy over content. *Insert long winded rant about how Wikipedia could be improved by releasing some of the tension in that collective sphincter* I have one last job to do though. See you at proposals! (quite certain that section will get shot down in flames) fredgandt 20:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not going to bother. fredgandt 22:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask Toddst1 to go easy on Alarbus, but that might just piss him off. I thought to suggest to Alarbus to not get into hot water on my account, but then WP:BEANS (gotta guideline for everything (more than half the bloody problem)). Decided to post here so anyone who gives a monkey's can read the same thing without hopping around. I'm not worth the agro!

I was getting pretty (very) pissed off with all the bureaucracy of late, and actually stopped watching the vast number of discussions about such scintillating issues like what colour the carpets should be, or what to call Thursday if the date is the 27th and the year is an even number. So the response of "just the kick in the butt I needed" was more honest than you might believe. The fact is: I'm glad my attitude got me scolded. Otherwise I might have gone on to waste even more time on this bloated hot air machine. The shame is that without the endless policies, guidelines and debates, the rest of the project would be awesome, but almost everything is tainted by the bad smell wafting off the dung-heap of bureaucracy. I thought about seriously proposing that Wikipedia go anarchic. Drop all the policies and guidelines, and guidelines on guidelines, and essays on guidelines on policies on guidelines on essays on something that someone said sometime.......... and effectively fire all the admin by making all qualified (1000 edits?) editors into admin by automatic default. What a joy that would be! Level playing field and the wisdom of crowds (Ahhh, Bisto!). But I know full well the proposal would have melted away to nothing (apathy) or been slammed shut by a frightened traditionalist (who never looked the word "Anarchy" up before, so doesn't know how harmonious it should be). That's the greatest problem of all now; the red tape is so tangled that almost nothing gets through. Slowly but surely the project will grind to a halt.

So, this is my last statement worth a damn. I may tinker here and there; I may not. I may finish the user scripts I was working on and publicize them (for others benefit (better add that before an admin throws a WP:NOT at me)); I may not. For now I'm going to play with my new fractal explorer and start designing something to program.

So Long, farewell, auf wiedersein, adieu! To yieu, and yieu, and yieu and yieu and yieu! (love that film) fredgandt 12:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, can you work that magic again at the article above? If so, thanks once again.

-Rich198.189.194.129 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although we've talked by email; for the public record of it; I'll get to it in the next few days. If someone gets there first, as long as the article is improved, that's what matters. fredgandt 20:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if I can help you in any way; Alarbus mentioned you on my talk. Peace,--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. User:Richard L. Peterson (the IP above) has been doing awesome work to improve some maths articles. I've been working with him to tidy up the presentation. I'm in the throws of creating a couple of bespoke web-sites for clients and am thus a little busy, but will get around to the tidy up soon (if nobody else does it first). If that's something you feel like helping with, all good

As for all that other crap (further above); whatever! Life's too short. fredgandt 15:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. I will be happy to do a copyedit of his work, just tell me one to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sorry. Still up to my eyes. Complex cross browser compatibility nonsense is making life difficult (I really don't like IE). Might be better if someone else does the tidying this time. I'll check up and do what I can later though. Keep up the good work Rich! fredgandt 23:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 January 24 in the section "Creating existing page in another language" and "Redirecting/merging" you linked to WP:Attribution I do not think this is not the best thing to do as the page is a failed policy page for which there was no consensus that it was ever accurate and it is not kept up to date (See the diff over the last 50 edits that takes it back to July 2008).So is likely to be confusing for people using the help desk. -- PBS (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page-patrolling script at User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult doesn't seem to be working for me today. It asserts that 100% of the listed articles are unpatrolled. It worked earlier this week. Has anything changed that you know of? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of my other scripts appears to have broken too. All it takes is for an element to get moved or renamed and things can turn to shit real quick. You may have noted that I'm not really around much these days; if I get the chance I promise to look into it, but may not get the chance any time soon.

Sorry. fredgandt 06:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem might be related to identifying patrolled pages, since Scottywong's NPP report on the Toolserver also broke. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed for you. The issue is/was that there has been added (to the new pages listings) some html links with similarities in the tag attributes, so the script was reading the wrong links to check for the signifier that the page is unpatrolled. I've stuck a double-take in the script, so it ignores the first of these links and reads the second (which used to be the first). Seems to be working again. Let me know. I'll respond eventually (busy boy!). fredgandt 01:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The script broke. It reaches "Gathering data: 78 of 79 unique authors" and then stops. They're working on a major update, so this might be a temporary issue. Also, have you seen Special:NewPagesFeed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look and found the problem. One particular user's articles or their name is fouling it up. I checked on another category and the same user broke the results. I need to add some error handling to the script. I'll get around to it as soon as I can. In the meantime search the results for 'Gök&Mah' before starting the script, edit to remove any entries from that user, run the script, then when you're done undo your last edit. I realise that's a little pain, but it will cut the immediate corner. fredgandt 20:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The work-around seems to be working for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It stopped working again. I think that last week's updates may be the cause. I thought it might clear up if I waited a few days, since there were all sorts of odd problems, but it's still down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the whole thing may need rewriting. *shrugs* fredgandt 15:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was nice while it lasted. They're doing a whole bunch of stuff around page patrolling, so I honestly don't think that re-writing it now (or any time in the next few months) would prove to be a good use of your time (unless, you know, you've absolutely run out of anything else to do and desperately need something to stave off boredom). So Thank you for a year of usefulness, and we'll see what happens later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC) +1[reply]

 fredgandt

Hi Fred,

I'd like to enlist your help in writing in a particular functionality in my Sources script. I'm not actually a programmer, and have arrived at this result using adapted code. However, it is beyond me to work out how I could code up this part of the script to switch correctly-named sources into either italicised or non-italicised forms when these are parts of citations not employing citation templates – in other words, to substitute "[''table'']" for "[table]". I reckon it's different from the "newWord" technique successfully employed in this array. In addition, I'd be interested in restructuring the script by ejecting the tables/dictionaries, and it would be great if you could advise. Of course, if there are other ways to streamline the code, I'd be please to learn. There is some documentation as to the aims and principles at User:Ohconfucius/script/Sources. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 08:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• PS, I'll be away for a week. So if you would like to help, you can save up your comments and post them to User talk:Ohconfucius/script. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 11:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, but promise nothing. fredgandt 11:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sorry, sorry. Been busy doing things. I think you'll be far better off asking someone else for help if you haven't already. Really sorry, I completely forgot about this (I just swung by to read articles and my bookmark brought me here). Sorry. fredgandt 04:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Do swing by if you have time. I'm such a dunce with programming that feel I can never be to short of technical advice. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i recently created this template {{Welcome-Mauritius}} particularly similar to {{Welcome to Wikipedia}}, however i'm experiencing some problems, only the first paragraph of the template appears when the template is use on a talk page and the red border also include the other content found on the page. Can you help me to solve it please.Kingroyos (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a few stabs at fixing it, but failed. It's been a long time since I worked on Wikipedia templates, and am very rusty. I'll try a total rebuild later.  fredgandt 17:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to function correctly as I've rebuilt it. There's no automatic section heading any more though. A casualty of war ;-)

I've edited the documentation to suit, and tested quickly and roughly.  fredgandt 23:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it work perfectly now.Kingroyos (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Que has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up :-)  fredgandt 06:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of updating my user scripts and css with an aim to make them ready and available for other users as standard scripts and possibly gadgets.

• I appreciate that my recent contributions read like I'm using Wikipedia as a playground, but these things don't write themselves ;-)

Bare with me? Cheers.

If however, you were here for some other reason - fire away :-) fredgandt 13:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sleeping bag liner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sleeping Bag. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fred, if you get time, could you work your magic on the R^2 section of Cauchy-Schwarz inequality? Thanks. Regards, Rich.170.170.59.133 (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich :-)

I never went anywhere; just relaxed a lot.

The "magic" you request is worked (as far as my understanding allows), but as you'll see, isn't exactly magic. A couple of HTML tags i.e. wrap the math in <math>a~=eh</math>, and you're good to go in most cases.

But - anytime :-) fredgandt 05:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I "channelled" you and wrote some more on Cauchy Shwarz inequality and then self-wikified. It's the best math wikifying I've done yet, though imperfect...could you take a look? Thanks bro.Rich (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have I ever mentioned my self diagnosed Dyscalculia?

It's also 3:45am and I've been smashing my head against JavaScript performance tests for a while.

The sum of these considerations equal "erm..." ;-)

Seriously, it looks like you know more about how to write wiki math syntax than I do! But I also have no idea what all the pretty number things should look like. My advice? If it looks right to you, it's right. If it looks right to me, it's probably nonsense, and I have no idea what any of it means.

If you can tell me what the "imperfect" parts are and how so, I might be able to deduce why they're not the way they should be. But no matter what, there's no way I'll be doing anything useful until I've slept for a healthy number of hours. fredgandt 03:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also glad to see more of you again, Fred.

Rich, you might look into the visual editor's newly updated math formula tool. This link should take you to the section you were working on; select a formula and choose "Edit" (not "Quick edit") from the pop-up context menu. It'll give you a live preview of the formula plus a bunch of buttons if you don't know the code for something. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya What... You appear to have grown a few letters since the last time we spoke ;-)

From the description, that tool sounds like a great idea (just about to slip off to bed, so I'll not try it out just yet). I get gooey over good GUI; Enabling people like Rich, with mad skills in history, psychology or math etc. but perhaps not so sure on their feet with code (even markup freaks some folk out) is what the dynamic modern web is all about IMO. The information age is a waste of time if people can't use (including sharing) the information. Folk trying to make sense of Big Data are currently battling that conundrum. I almost waffled on about semantics and AI. Nope. Shhh.

I appreciate the gladness What... (one syllable names rock \m/). /me blushes fredgandt 19:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been granted the "template editor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links:

• All template-protected pages
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you are willing to entertain requests from others, I suggest you watchlist User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable, it is a bot generated list of all outstanding template-protected edit requests, many of them are not contentious, just required to be made with care. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. fredgandt 07:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too; exactly the watchlist I was going to need to search for; saved me some leg work. fredgandt 07:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--

Fred, thanks for your help on The Rain Song page. I don't doubt Mpearc was frustrated by all the back and forth, but he or she should have responded more productively to my comments. The edit itself existed a long time before all the recent controversy. I am aware to the talk page discussion and will offer my opinion today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.228.108 (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In many cases, being involved in a dispute can cloud the judgement; as a passer by, it looked like everyone was caught in a silly infinite loop and needed a break. fredgandt 13:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fred Gandt. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC). 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.

LFaraone 07:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ironic that User:Fred Gandt/previewCategoryDupeArgs.js is in Category:Pages_using_duplicate_arguments_in_template_calls. however, if you just put a colon before the 'Category', you can remove it from the category. dumb that WP parses your javascript as if it were wikitext, but that's the way it goes. Frietjes (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Thanks Frietjes. Something to be more mindful of in future. fredgandt 23:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please translate. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a template dispute. This is a content dispute. Boghog (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that {{Multiple issues 2}} is a temporary solution and can be deleted as soon as we can come to a consensus as how to best resolve both the template and content disputes. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally the template dispute is not really a dispute at all. I am just trying to find a solution that is acceptable to all parties. The solution is either to modify the {{Multiple issues}} wrapper template and/or the {{Cleanup}} and {{Expert needed}} templates. I think there is strong argument to modify all three. Boghog (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already provided the solution by using each issue template in its standard configuration without the Multiple issues wrapper, but you reverted that too. You seem unreasonably determined to have things your way; you are seeking your solution, not a solution. fredgandt 21:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the attention banners in Acetone peroxide but rather how the mother and daughter templates are configured. I am trying to suggest a long term solution that extends beyond this particular article. To repeat, I am trying to find a solution that is acceptable to all parties. Boghog (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are fighting for a change to the standard configuration in a live article. The correct place to argue was on the template talk page, not by multiple reverts and the creation of extraneous templates. The simplest solution to your immediate concerns has been and gone, and although I don't feel particularly good about it, I am composing a report for edit warring in another tab. The article space is not the place for tests and demos playing god. We have templates to standardise content, and the fact that the template you want changed is protected should provide a hint as to the consensus view that it should stay that way. It is possible that your edit request may result in changes that will have the effect you desire, but - for the last time - an edit war over the usage of templates in the article space is an edit war over article content. In future, bare wp:no deadline in mind. fredgandt 21:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have completely misunderstood why I made the change to the Acetone peroxide attention banners. Where this originated was with over tagging as discussed here. More specifically the problem had to do with excessively long comments in the attention banners and too many attention banners. The solutions is to move the comments to the talk page with an appropriate link and consolidate the attention banner by wrapping them in a {{Multiple issues}} template. Unfortunately because the short form of the {{expert-subject}} does not display a talk page link, one cannot currently do both. If you prefer, I can completely replace the template with hard coded links. Boghog (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. For the second third time, this is not an edit war. I am trying to solve a problem. Boghog (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contacted me repeatedly. Isn't this how disputes are suppose to be resolved? Boghog (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Boghog, it's simple full disclosure. You assume incorrectly that I'm insinuating that you're hassling me? Well from my perspective, you weren't. However, that feeling is beginning to change. As far as I am concerned, the whole shebang is in the hands of admin now, and hopefully will be resolved satisfactorily soon. I personally don't feel that discussing the report or my reasons for making it is appropriate here and/or now. As for the article: it should be templated correctly. As for the template edit request, a discussion about it is underway on its talk page, and that may result in ... etc. etc. Discussions about discussions make me tired. See wp:3rr fredgandt 22:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why can we not discuss this before going to administrators? After all, this is policy. I am really confused. Boghog (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To address some misconceptions:

• The article space is not the place for tests and demos. As I had already stated here, this edit to Acetone peroxide was not a demo but rather a temporary fix to an active dispute. The sandbox demonstration was tested here.
• As for the article: it should be templated correctly. How did you come to the conclusion it was templated incorrectly? Adding an optional parameter to link to a talk page section should not be a big deal. Even if it was, ignore all rules allows for exceptions. In this particular case, the exception was clearly justified. Boghog (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than discussing your preferences and intentions when I brought the issue up at Template talk:Multiple issues, you belligerently reverted to a state you wanted against my own, GoingBatty's and wbm1058's independent concerns. Also rather than discussion, you pushed ahead with the creation of an issue sidestepping temporary {{Multiple issues 2}}. You showed no interest in discussion until after your third revert, of my perfectly reasonable compromise attempt. fredgandt 13:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubborn yes, belligerent no. In Acetone peroxide I specifically wanted the attention banners to be condensed as possible while still retaining a link to the appropriate section in the talk page. Your compromise solution undid precisely what I was trying to accomplish. Boghog (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Also in case you missed what I posted at the Administrators' noticeboard: The Acetone peroxide article was part of longer term, multi article dispute concerning what in my humble opinion was excessive and inappropriate use of attention banners by a third party (see for example this discussion). I hope you now understand where I was coming from. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• You showed no interest in discussion until after your third revert – false. Before my third revert, I posted two messages on your talk page here and here because I was genuinely confused by what you meant by your edit summary. Also before my revert, I explained my reasons for temporarily using the sandbox version here. Finally before my revert, I directly responded to wbm1058 concerns (and also indirectly your concerns) here. Boghog (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I have a few minutes between doing stuff and taking my dog for a walk, I thought I'd describe how I'd behave if our roles were reversed, to provide some insight into my perspective.

So I'm wandering around Wikipedia and find an article with issues - multiple issues no less!

Perhaps it already has two separate templates, perhaps it doesn't, but long story short, it ends up with two wrapped in a {{Multiple issues}}.

I'd like to link to a talk page section about one of the issues, but because of the way the templates work, I find I cannot.

I start a discussion at the template's talk page suggesting that this state of affairs is sometimes undesirable (this discussion might take some time).

Whilst waiting for input from my peers, the article's issues are still not linked to their independent discussion sections - and the sky starts falling!

I unwrap the two issues from the multiple issues template, link the talk sections and go and put the kettle on.

I come back to find another editor has reverted my edit, so I go to their talk page to open a discussion with them about the situation as I see it.

I was bold, they reverted, we discussed - we disagree.

I go and do something else.

• From this, by comparison, you may see my perspective of what actually happened. The way I see it, you were more

Bold --> Single minded --> Brazen --> Defensive --> Aggressive --> Justify

than

Bold --> Revert --> Discuss

As for all the regurgitation of histories etc. etc. - not interested. That's the admin's job.

• For the record: I'll not be participating in the discussion about the template's alteration (removed from watchlist) as I feel you're not willing to compromise, and endlessly stating this against that gets nothing useful done. A discussion is as much about listening as it is about talking. However, I hope a solution is found (that isn't what you suggest), since I've been bothered by the functionality myself in the past. I would urge you, for the sake of the project, to accept a compromise that all parties are comfortable with, instead of sticking stubbornly to your proposal. fredgandt 17:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the top design of your userpage. --Greek Legend (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Legend Thanks  fredgandt 10:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Stuff You Should Know (2011) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/should-you-not-eat-gluten/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Non-Dropframe _talk 21:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Stuff You Should Know (2012) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/how-yo-yos-work/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Non-Dropframe _talk 21:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have quit discussions on {{Multiple issues}}, {{Multiple issues 2}} and Acetone peroxide and request that no editor other than administrators attempt in any way to draw me back in, there or here. I'm out, and staying that way. fredgandt 20:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you feel it necessary to change the template after an administrator advised you to wait for the RfC to close? Why didn't you follow your own FYI advice? No one drew you back into this debate. Finally why can't we discuss things as I tried to do above before running to administrators? Boghog (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of reality is twisted so far out of shape, it was funny until you started talking to me like I'm some kind of idiot you need to placate.

Advised?! (since when?) Debate!? (on what talk page?) Running to?!? (emotive balderdash) DISCUSS LIKE ABOVE!????????? (after the fact justification).

Get over yourself and grow up. When multiple editors agree that your edits should be undone, have some respect and accept it. When admin tell you you're edit warring, have some humility and learn from it. When discussing anything with anyone, pull your head out of your ass and open your ears; discussions are not ONLY about what you want to say and what you think (lol) and what you want to do.

I realise that this may come as a surprise, but other people may see things differently to you, and they may have valid points that differ to your own. Sometimes you can even learn things from other people and compromise to find agreement. IKR?! Shocker!

I'm done with you. If you stop behaving like a spoiled brat whining to get your own way, and start behaving like a proper human being working toward an agreeable common goal, feel free to come back apologise for being a dick.

Hiding behind the wall of apathetic bureaucracy this place has built around itself is lame. Across the internet, you'd be called out in an instant for being a flaming troll. You get off on pissing people off because your tiny pointless life is otherwise devoid of meaning. You want a rise? You got one. Satisfied? Now I'm the bad guy. Isn't that just dandy? Douche.

P.S. You're usual BS of pulling apart every word used in every statement and throwing back in a convoluted bundle is boring. Go ahead (again) - I really don't care about it. I'm busy doing something else far more interesting than this. fredgandt 03:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear from above that I did try to discuss this issue with you before you filed the 3RR report. Boghog (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]