User talk:AstroHurricane001/Archive 10

=July 2007=

To do:
"Help suggest wikipedia should be moved to Orlando, then Atlanta, in case sea level rise threatens servers." I though I was the only person who worried about that... ~ thesublime514  •  talk  •  sign  23:49, July 5, 2007 (UTC)

Dinotopia-stub
Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha?  02:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

RE. YIKES!!!
Hello, that was some kind of bug that biron fixed. See, , and for more details. No the image you added had nothing to do with the glitch so no worries with that. Happy editing. :) K O S  |  talk  16:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:AstroHurricane001/Signpost story
I was wondering if you think this would be better as a separate story, or part of the technology news in the Signpost? Either way, here's some extra information: the problem was reported to developers on the bug tracker at 10539; the cause turned out to be an operator-precedence typo, that was causing all the affected diffs/edits to be made to the page which contained the revision with revision number 1. The error was introduced in r23973 (referring to a version of the software) and fixed immediately afterwards in version r23974, but there was disruption in the meantime. (Wikipedia's running version 1.11alpha (r24044) as of this comment.) If you think that there's enough in the story to run it separately, feel free to incorporate this information; if you don't, enough happened that a separate section in the technology report (which I haven't started writing yet, as it has to be written close to press time to reflect recent developments) would be appropriate, and it would be much easier for me to incorporate your content into the article than duplicate the effort you've gone to. --ais523 17:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've incorporated your article as a section in mine, because it wasn't really long enough to stand as an article on its own. It should be included in tomorrow's (today's?) Signpost as a section in the technology report. --ais523 11:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm just wondering, why did you add this to the tfd's? I'm not sure if it was a test, if you were editting another page, if you thought it needed refs, etc, but this invalid refernece parameter casued the entire expand section to go under the seven wonders thing. I have fixed it since. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 15:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not even sure how that happened. It just sort of appeared. I couldn't figure out how to get it back to normal at first anyway. Kevin 15:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed unmerge
You commented in Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 25. You may therefore be interested in the discussion in progress at Talk:Wikipedia community Your comments would be welcome. Thank you. DES (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On the question of "meatpupetry" i raised the matter on the Admin's incident noticeboard. You can see the thread that resulted at WP:ANI. Several administrators and experienced editors commented. None of them seemed to think that it would be "meatpupetry" to comment on the unmerge discussion.
 * As to the size of the former article, you ca see it in the history, it hasn't been deleted. See here.
 * As to the "voting" systems on Wikipedia, you do have a point. Most of the formal boards, such as Articles for deletion, Deletion Review and the like are set up to make a single yes/no decision, and other stuff can get kind of bypassed. When i close such a discussion (which i do fairly often on AfD, and sometimes on some other boards) I do try to weight the various suggestions, and I always read every comment, usually at least twice. But boiling it all down into a single action can be tricky. By the way, there is a board to discuss moves (Requested Moves), and foe for sysopping (Request for Adminship), and for protection (Request for Page protection). merges, though, along with many other changes that are not simple yes/no decisions, are normally discussed on the talk page of the article involved, and those discussion tend to be more free-wheeling, as there is no formal close procedure. This can be good or bad, depending. There is also Request for comment which can serve as a more general forum to settle some particular issue, sometimes.
 * Your further comments are welcome. DES (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)