User talk:Dcoetzee/Archive 2012 2 11

for you


sonia ♫ 23:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy


Buster7 has given you a Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. A kitten, flowers, and now a cookie. You must be special! You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Thanks for the help in my Sandbox. It was my first move. What should I have done to prevent the ReDirect?? Nice Biscuits are very tasty and have been known to be so NICE, they will even bake themselves. Enjoy! Buster Seven   Talk  05:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Buster, and thank you! You cannot prevent a redirect (only administrators can, this it could be used to effectively delete a high traffic article). Dcoetzee 05:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm actually still at Berkeley, although I'm graduating in May. I've added myself to the mailing list. Transcendence (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

New Pages and New Users
I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with your ambassadorial work I thought it might be up your alley. If you're interested, read Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikiversity page
I'd appreciate someone that's actually doing math at graduate level, in drafting the following: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:ShakespeareFan00/Grid_definitions over at Wikiversity.

By the subject headings you will note that in time, I'd like to include non rectilinear grids, like those in geodesic domes, which are nonethless still a 'grid' of sorts.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Knagy
Ok, thanks for warning me about personal information, but I didn't want my entire user pages deleted. Knagy (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Check again, I recreated it now. If you stayed in the IRC channel I would have explained. Dcoetzee 00:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you! I really appreciate it and I'm glad it's helpful. :-) Dcoetzee 03:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dcoetzee, I just wanted to second GorillaWarfare's comment. All those gazillion hours I spent at CV the past couple of years -- now reduced to a quick click. Brilliant stuff. Thanks for this tool. — Cactus Writer (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to help :-) Dcoetzee 05:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you help?
Bonjour! Pouvez-vous aider par une question du droit d'auteur? It is located here. Mon français n'est pas à la hauteur. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bien sûr, je serais heureux de t'aider. :-) Dcoetzee 12:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Toujours, vous êtes très gentil. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Mail
You have it ;). Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

List of puddles
Sorry about that...would you mind copying it to something like User:Lanthanum-138/List of puddles? (This way it won't clutter up the mainspace...) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Move of Al-Arabi SC (Qatar)
Hi, thank u for your message, I change the name because the team of caurse is a Qatari club, however it's represent Doha (city). For example we don't say Bayern Germany (Bayern Munich) or England United (Manchester United) or Real Spain (Real Madrid). However I will discuss why i change the name I understand and I agree your explain. Thank u. --Faycal.09 (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
FYI: User blocked Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/George Ellias
You organised the creation of the article at AfC in perfectly good faith probably not knowing its  history and the sock/meat puppetry. The creator has been declined five unblock requests for sock and/or meatpuppetry (admitted by WanderingScholars) involving decisions by  five sysops. Two sysops have seen fit to protect and/or salt the article The creator has been offered the opportunity to  provide reliable sources by proxy that would be added to  the article by the blocking sysops. If he has chosen not to, that is probably not a concern of this AfD. That said, although I've had yet another look for sources and there are many, but of the wrong kind to assert notability, I  would be prepared to  lift  the block and unprotect on  a firm  undertaking  from  WanderingScholars not to  game the sytem, but  I  feel  that  I  would need the consensus of the other sysops involved. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Zondervan
Thanks for the feedback. One point I'd like to make, however:

The main controversy surrounding Zondervan is somewhat of an internal affair to Christianity: the controversy is entirely over whether or not Zondervan should be trusted, seeing as it is owned by a secular media company. I would suppose that secular sources would be rather unlikely to pick up on the story, seeing how it is mostly irrelevant to those unconcerned with Christianity and the state of one of its publishers. From the (admittedly horrible) site http://www.kingdombaptist.org/new-bible-versions-and-the-growing-pornographic-industry/ : You can see how such an issue would both be a controversy, and something unlikely to be covered by many secular news outlets. Jsharpminor (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let’s examine this from another angle. Has News Corp. always allowed their subsidiaries to operate autonomously? While driving the other day I happened to hear a bit of the Marlin Maddox radio program. They main topic was the remark that the younger Murdock made concerning Falon Gong and China (I am surprised no one called in to comment on the NIV.) They were enraged at the Murdocks for “selling out” and turning a blind eye to the sufferings of the people under Communism. China represents the world’s largest media market. It is five times larger than the U.S. market. The Murdocks do not want to do anything to disrupt cashing in on that market. Marlin Maddox had an interview with a man who fled China; he had been dropped from a HarperCollins publishing deal because his important book was speaking out against the Chinese. The U.S. News reported in 1998:
 * “The scandal that could have far-reaching repercussions involved HarperCollins, a unit of News Corp. The publishing house last month dropped a book by Christopher Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong. The ostensible reason was that the writing was inadequate. But the action fit a pattern of Murdoch’s adjusting editorial policies so as not to offend the Chinese leadership in Beijing. Murdoch’s News Corp. has invested heavily in a satellite broadcasting business based in Hong Kong and eventually hopes to be able to beam programming to mainland China’s huge population. Murdoch denied ordering that the book be dropped. But a memo by HarperCollins Chairman Eddie Bell, which surfaced last week, indicated otherwise: ‘Murdoch has outlined to me the negative aspects of publication, which I fully understand,’…After being pilloried in newspapers, Murdoch issued a limited apology to Patten for any suggestion that his book had been rejected for “being too boring.” HarperCollins later reached an out-of-court financial settlement with Patten, who had threatened to sue the publishing house…During the HarperCollins contretemps, potentially damaging remarks on China by a former Times writer also came to light. ‘The Times has simply decided, because of Murdoch’s interests, not to cover China in a serious way,’ Jonathan Mirsky, the paper’s former East Asian editor, said at a conference in January, according to a transcript that recently appeared on the Internet.” (3-23-98)
 * Thus, the “top” does control the bottom – when it cares to. And why not? A man ought to have right to control his businesses in whatever manner he chooses. And we ought to have the right to REJECT anything associated with the pornographic industry!

USF Class Visit
Hi Derrick - hope all is well with you. Did you receive my email about this Saturday's class? Are you still able to make it for a quick presentation and Q&A? I'd like to iron out the topics with you and Jim. I think Annie will do a brief introduction and I will help facilitate and help where needed. Let me know if we are still on! Thanks Jodi.elizabeth (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jodi, sorry for the slow response, I'll get back to you by e-mail today! Dcoetzee 21:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use bot
The problem with the Commons fair use upload bot is that it uploads images without a licence or rationale, and which are copyright violations. This goes against the Non-free content criteria and the Image use policy. Eventualism is not acceptable in relation with the copyright of images, it is not acceptable to upload images of unknown or unclear copyright, knowing that their copyright is unknown or unclear, expecting someone else to do the work of checking it.

The Non-free content criteria states clearly that there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content, sets a number of requirements, and that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale. In other words, that you must detail the copyright status before uploading, not after. The Image use policy is even more explicit: "Always tag your image with one of the image copyright tags. When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images." The seven-days period before deletion is merely a good-will gesture for unexperienced users or to fix cases of images that are unused or without rationale because of vandalism in the target article or the file page; it is not a carte blanche allowing to knowingly upload copyright violations on a steady basis as long as they are deleted afterwards.

Have in mind that the non-free content criteria demands images under such expection doctrine to follow certain rules, wich are not required from images in commons: minimal usage, actual usage, no free alternative, previous publication, etc. There is also a rule in that we don't accept fair use images of photos of living people, merely to show how they look like. The bot does not, it can not, check those things. In fact, right now we have File:Official un picture srsg svc margot wallström - from Commons.jpg in there, a photo of a living woman, which will never be accepted under a fair use exception.

In sort, the bot works on a basic premise, the premise that any file that is not free for commons may be used instead with a fair use claim, and that is false. Only a small portion of all copyrighted images around internet may qualify for a fair use claim. Besides, rules for either images usage are different. Free images may be used at non-article namespaces, at any number of articles as desired (such as transcluding in templates), in galleries, in derivative images such as montages, etc. If a non-free image is uploaded to Commons as if it was free, used in one of those manners, detected, deleted and removed, fair use would not allow to restore that state of things. Cambalachero (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The bot works on the premise that if an image is in use on En, somebody may have an interest in preserving it - like the people who work on the article(s) in which it is used. That's why it leaves notices on talk pages. If they do not, it is deleted in a week. It does not move images which are not in use on En. I think this is far preferable to the disruption caused by removing images in active use, having to contact a Commons admin to obtain a copy, re-uploading, and adding fair use information - a two-person process so time-consuming that many images are simply lost instead. More importantly, the bot is needed to maintain sound community relations - there is active talk about no longer uploading images to Commons for fear that they might be subsequently deleted. Some wikis have shunned Commons altogether. This can't be allowed to continue. Dcoetzee 11:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is that the images the bot uploads are copyright violations: they are not free, nor explicited under a fair use rationale. Besides, it is incorrect to assume that an image may be acceptable as fair use merely because "it's used". Copyright is a serious issue, and it can't be considered as "disruption" to delete a copyrighted image because it's used, copyright takes priority over other concerns. Have in mind that if the non-free doctrine was used as an umbrella to upload just anything anyone wants to use, and escape from Commons detection, the only results will be a giant increase of files for deletion at this project. There are already too much maintenance tasks around, and to have image maintenance "outsourced" to another project saves a lot of such work here. Cambalachero (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you think there would be an increase at files for deletion - the images will either be speedily deleted after 7 days, or have fair use rationales added, in which case they're no more likely to end up at FfD than any other fair-use upload. The speedy deletion after 7 days could be entirely automated, imposing no burden on anyone. As for outsourcing maintenance tasks to another project, it's not Commons' responsibility to re-upload images to local projects that are usable under fair use, and as important as it is, the burden of doing so would be enormous - we don't understand every project's local procedures or criteria, we don't speak their languages. I am just trying to shift the burden to the people actually capable of handling the task. Dcoetzee 01:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Image sizes
Would you have an objection to your bot uploading the full-size images, but with Non-free reduce automatically applied (or just applied if they're over a certain size and your bot looks at that detail)? That way there would be less of an issue with multi-megapixel images such as File:AlewifeBronzeTiles - from Commons.JPG being incorrectly marked as "Low resolution? Yes" by those unfamiliar with WP:NFC since would automatically reduce them if a human editor doesn't, and it would still leave the original in history for an admin to examine before deleting it for good in case the auto-resize resolution isn't workable for that particular image. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Verno, I've already thought of doing this and would be happy to do so. I think a good start is to tag everything over 400 pixels wide. Dcoetzee 01:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, that happens to be the exact size that DASHBot is approved to resize, so it seems to be a good working number. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

*whack*
For reducing me to a figment of your imagination :P sonia ♫  10:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I guess I just assumed a girl as wonderful as you could only exist in my imagination. :-P Dcoetzee 11:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Commons fair use upload bot
Someone has marked Bots/Requests for approval/Commons fair use upload bot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place  anywhere on this page.

Let you know
I just wanted to let you know that i've informed relevant Wikiprojects about your election poster image deletion nominations. These Wikiprojects include Wikiproject Singapore, Ireland, Belgium, Austria, Thailand, Jersey, Japan, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, Abkhazia, and Albania. Let me know if I missed any. Silver seren C 20:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for inviting input from interested parties. :-) Dcoetzee 07:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Contribution surveyor bug?
So I tried to make run a report on some rather old contributions, and I'm seeing some weird results. The report shows this edit as being a new page, when it's not, and it's missing many of the user's contributions - such as this one which is the one that drew my attention in the first place. Am I doing something wrong and just not seeing it or is there some sort of bug when it comes to these 7+ year old contribs? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll need to investigate - it may be missing some edits for some reason, which would explain the new page marks, but the reason is not yet clear to me. Dcoetzee 21:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dcoetzee. I just found the Contribution Surveyor tool, and it says that you made it. Great tool, although I would like it to make the same search in other Wikipedia-languages too... Do you think that would be available at some time ? Btw. I'm mostly on the Norwegian Wikipedia where I'm Migrant, but since that username is taken here i took the name Migrant2 here. Thanks again for developing that Contribution Surveyor Tool. --Migrant2 (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Migrant, the existing tool should work fine for Norwegian without any changes. Just put in the full URL of the Wikipedia page when using it. It won't work for languages without spaces, however (e.g. Chinese). Dcoetzee 00:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate detector
This tool seems to be detecting duplications from the .mil domain. Such copies are, of course, almost always US-PD, not copyvio.  DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're confused. My tool doesn't search for duplicate documents, it just identifies duplicated text from a given document. You may be looking for User talk:CorenSearchBot. Dcoetzee 00:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I may, I think DGG was simply thrown by the template's appearance in the G12 tag, as here. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Reuploading deleted images?
Hi, Derrick. :) Over at my talk page we've got a report of a contributor reuploading images deleted as copyvios on Commons under different title. I can't see the original images to confirm that they are exactly the same, but they surely seem likely. I'm not sure what Commons does with repeat offenders of this sort--if an explanation is needed (which I can give) or a block (which I cannot). Can you take a look and see what you think? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

FP nomination
Hello, sorry I probably should have asked first, but I thought it might be a good idea to nominate one of the images you uploaded, Featured picture candidates/The Anti-Slavery Society Convention, 1840, for featured picture. I hope you don't mind me taking the liberty, as it were? Rob (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please feel free! I nommed it for FP on Commons and I think it's one of our very best images. Dcoetzee 22:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

South African?
Hey, I see you have a South African surname. Are you of South African origin? --Michaelphillipr (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My father is from South Africa. I was born and raised in the United States. Dcoetzee 01:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Doingitwright407
Back in march you warned this user about fair-use issues, Could you have another look at their contributions as they seem to have got warnings subsequently? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All their uploads were copyvios. I gave them a final warning. I treat deceptive claims of "own work" with very little patience. Dcoetzee 01:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the block on. Please review my action here, regarding protection against the attempted outing of the other user. -- Cirt (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Anna Nalick
Thank you for your kind words. Glad to help! Having seen Anna over ten times on my end (and being one of the core fans she can name) helps quite a bit, though I do my best to ensure that any edits I make to her Wikipedia article remains neutral. RachGreen (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

E-mail from Richwales
Rich wales (talk · contribs) 22:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Duplication Detector gets older versions of WP pages?
Hi Dcoetzee,

I created the page Talk:Jonathan_Moyle/temp and want to eliminate the "coincidences" with the page http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/60769.stm

I made some changes, saved it and fill the Detector form and send it. But the detector matches text that in the last version doesn't exist!

Is it possible that the Duplication Detector gets from the WP server old (cached) version of the WP page and not the last one?. If yes, how can I force the last one?.

Thanks in advance, --Keysanger 00:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Dcoetzee,


 * I answer myself: I use now


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_Moyle/temp&oldid=430596986


 * Thanks anyway, --Keysanger 09:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Try using CTRL+F5 to make sure you're not getting a cached copy. Dupdet should never cache, but sometimes if the GET URL is the same some intermediate host will cache it anyway. Your workaround of using a permalink should always work since it changes the URL. Dcoetzee 22:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey
Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Dcoetzee 22:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Great American Wiknic
Hi there! In the past, you've expressed an interest in local meetups of Wikipedians. Well, here's your chance! On Saturday, June 25, we'll be joining Wikipedians in cities all over the country for the first annual Great American Wiknic -- the picnic that anyone can edit! We'll meet up at a park in SF -- hopefully in the sun -- all other details are still in deliberation!

If this sounds fun, please add your name to the list: Meetup/San Francisco/Wiknic and add that page to your watchlist. (And of course, feel free to edit that page with your ideas, questions, etc.) I look forward to wiknicking with you! -Pete (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for consolidating!
You are hereby given the barnmite of consolidation. It's very small, but it's appreciative. --> .  <-- Ocaasi c 16:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem :-) Dcoetzee 23:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

AWB
Hi I noticed you added yourself to AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. This is useless as administrators can already run AWB without appearing in the list! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I suspected that but did not know for sure. Dcoetzee 11:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Cookie


Voyager640 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * Thank you. :-) Dcoetzee 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:LittlBitsCharacters.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:LittlBitsCharacters.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a FUR. Back in 2005 those rules didn't exist :-) Dcoetzee 23:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Backhouse identification
File:Sir John Backhouse by 'VM'.jpg - I thought you might be interested. This John Backhouse will be the son of Samuel Backhouse on whom I was working just now. The NPG description points out the Order of the Bath he is wearing, which tallies with what is said here about the Backhouses of Swallowfield. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, Dcoetzee, for your comments about the inappropriateness of an attack essay recently created by a user focused on me. I'm really appreciative of your statements about the matter. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

forestryimages.org
Hi Derrick, if I recall correctly, you have a subscription allowing you to get full res versions of images at forestryimages.org. If that's the case, when you have time could you upload a full res version of this image? Feel free to crop out the label as well if you like. Thanks! SmartSE (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Smartse, anyone can register for an account at forestryimages.org, and once they've done so and logged in they can access full resolution versions. So you shouldn't have any trouble doing this on your own - let me know if it's not working. Please upload the version with the label first so that we have the original archived. Thanks! Dcoetzee 19:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the stupidly slow reply - kinda forgot about this. I hadn't realised that subscriptions are free, but now I know I'll be sure to get one. Thanks for the info! SmartSE (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wicnic hangover
Non-alcoholic, that is...

Did you really offer to illustrate my biographical articles by posting photos, or am I still intoxicated with the thrill of meeting other real live Wikipedians? If you truly want to illustrate these articles, I will supply links. And not only I, but the eventual readers, will be grateful. How about it?

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! If you can help find suitable photos I would be glad to help get them uploaded and tagged correctly and added to the articles, provided they are in the public domain. Let me know if you find something suitable - if you have print media like books or newspapers with PD media you can scan them and e-mail me the pics at dc@moonflare.com. Hope this helps. Dcoetzee 20:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear from you; give me a heads up if you should ever decide to come to Vallejo. I'll probably be able to sub as a tour guide.

As for photos, how about the pic on the talk page of Albert Enstone? I have been in email contact with his grand-daughter and she has posted a photo of him there.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer! Handled that one, see talk page. Dcoetzee 18:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Boston meeting
Derrick, can we find your pics from the WP summit somewhere online? That would be great! Domusaurea (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Still working on putting them up - I have a lot of people to ID, postprocessing to do, permission to get, etc. - but the ones that are up so far are at:
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcoetzee/sets/72157627050288421/
 * and some have been copied to: commons:Category:2011 Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit (not all mine)
 * Hope this helps. Dcoetzee 21:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Revokable free licenses
Hey. I'm sorry to just contact you out of the blue like this, but you're an editor who I think may be able to help. We have something of an issue concerning the use of an image with a free but revokable license. If you have the time, could you possibly take a look at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Canoe River train crash/archive1? Thanks very much. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A common problem
Dear Wikipedist editor, I want to submit to your attention an our common problem: disruptive contributions and edit warring operated by user Derek farn (talk). This latter shows systematically a provoking behaviour and lacking of respect for other people’s work, typical of vandalism. I’ve sent this communication to many people having the same problem in order to organize a collective protest/action request directed to e.g. the Arbitration Committee or Requests for comment/User conduct (this latter procedure requires the participation of at least two users) or to the Wikipedia Community. If you agree with this initiative please contact me at this dedicated email address: clipeaster-1971 AT yahoo DOT com. In order to avoid creating of a forum section dedicated to Derek farn I suggest you to delete this communication once you’ve read it and, then, be in contact via email. Any suggestion are welcomed. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Invitations for off-wiki contact involving disruptive users will always be declined, and I will not remove this message. It is necessary for our processes to be transparent. Dcoetzee 21:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Dcoetzee, I didn’t mean to bother you. Already another user pointed out to me that promoting off-wiki contact is not in agreement with Wikipedia policies. I’m not expert about Wikipedia rules, nevertheless I know that Request for comment on user conduit needs to be operated by at least two users, consequently I guess that sending such an invitation is of course allowed (I don’t want to canvass you). I suggested use of email for two reasons: (i) I don’t understand how more people can communicate efficiently via user talk page, in order to coordinate a request for some restriction, (ii) in order to avoid producing a forum dedicated to Derek farn. Nevertheless now I understand that off-wiki communication is not the correct way to perform such an action request. I would be grateful if you could provide me some useful suggestion about. I’m in good faith and I invite you to give a look to Derek farn’s talk page. Five years of dispute and no constructive contributions but only reverting of other people work. With my best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

Kind acts of randomness barnstar
You deserve this. Thanks for your help and that article about Palin! Greetings from Amsterdam, Wasbeer 01:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC) p.s. I edited your userpage.

Template:Internet Relay Chat redirect
You removed the speedy tag yet a Internet Relay Chat redirect is ambiguous as we have other "Internet Relay Chat" templates. I had to RfD such a redirect once before for the same reason and it seems silly to have to do this yet again after reverting another problematic page move. IRC footer is transcluded by other templates with parameters and should not be transcluded by itself (except for a few project-space uses) so no such redirect to it should exist. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I meant to redirect it to Template:IRC topics, which is intended to be transcluded by itself. Dcoetzee 09:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, my point is not all templates are navboxes or infoboxes and because the template name is ambiguous, it should still be deleted. Another which I had to RfD in the past was Infobox irc (RfD). It makes no sense to keep these sort of ambiguous and confusing redirects around in the Template: namespace, especially in the case of Internet Relay Chat, which itself is a leftover from a problematic page move  . If you won't delete it (even though it is ambiguous, unused, etc) then leave the speedy tag in place so someone else can. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but being ambiguous and unused is not a criterion for speedy deletion (certainly not a valid R2). A potentially useful redirect requires a deletion discussion. How a redirect comes into being does also not affect its usefulness. Dcoetzee 23:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

That Cote 'ref'
Did some more digging about that seemingly new ref in this subject's latest re-incarnated article and finally figured out that the asserted ref really doesn't exist. What seems to have happened is the following:
 * A reference that mentioned a "Briege McGarrity" & the "New York International Video Festival" from this version with the original cited material actually being written by another 'Dave Cote' (a theatre/film critic and member of The New York Drama Critics' Circle)

were eventually mixed up together to become a malformed ref about the AfD'ed Cote (allegedly)'written' by "Brian Garrity" in:
 * "Brian Garrity New York Post June 12, 2007" in this userspace version(See Ref#10).

Per my comments at the original AfD, the alleged Brian Garrity/June 12, 2007 article does not exist. (To further confuse looking into the malformed reference, Garrity did write for the New York Post in 2007).

Thanks for your help, thought you'd want to know. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Image size
Please don't swap images for files so large that many people whose server is slow or who don't own the latest equipment can't view. It's exclusive. It cuts out millions of users, right across the world. Where I am, 80 k from the state capital, the server is so slow that it would take an hour to load it. Amandajm (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. The software provides a Download button above the image that allow you to download thumbnails of any size that you desire, so it can adjust to suit anyone's bandwidth (this feature is enabled by default for logged out users, but you may have to enable it in your preferences to see it). The page also provides a link to an interactive viewer with a zoomable interface. You can also download reduced resolution versions of the images by using wikitext on a temporary page and the preview button (e.g. [[File:The Immaculate Conception, by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg|1024px]], 300 KB). Having two different sizes of the same image uploaded under different filenames would create many practical problems and is against policy; see also commons:User_talk:Dcoetzee. I'm looking into filing a bug with Mediawiki asking for more convenient support for downloading thumbnails of large images. Whatever you do, please do not revert to the original images, because these are not only lower-resolution but lower-quality, having inferior colour reproduction and loss of detail. Dcoetzee 18:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You presume too much on ordinary people's ability to find and use such things. The options for different sizes are in Wikimedia Commons. But if one clicks the image, it doesn't come up in Commons. It appears in Wikipedia. Do you really imagine that every person who looks up Leonardo's paintings are going to find their way through to Commons, once they have a picture on their screen? They won't. All the stages of operation are unnecessary.
 * Moreover, you average viewer doesn't need the very high res option. Very few people do.  There is a fanaticism on w Wikipedia with technical minutiae that can hamper effective communication.
 * Another problem with the very high res image is that at lower resolution it is darker and looses detail. If you leave the painting on Commons, then people who need to know whether his eyelashes are painted will probably find it, becuase it will be important. Please done't delete the other image which conveys more info at lower resolution. Amandajm (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the UI is problematic and these features are very hard to discover. Clicking on the image (whether on the English Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons) should present options to download at lower resolution. This can be fixed and I'll request for them to do so. As for being darker, I deliberately adjusted levels of the images so that the details would be visible without making the background so bright as to lose contrast, but there's always room for alternative versions that are brighter in order to make background details more visible (and it is your editorial choice which one you prefer). However, there is no need to sacrifice resolution to do so - these can be created by re-levelling the high resolution images and re-uploading them under another name. If you give me some idea what you need I could easily make images like this available. Dcoetzee 11:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The file that you have uploaded is much truer in colour to the original than the reddish-brown version that was there previously.
 * There are few problems caused by the fact that there was a bit of light shining here and there, picking out the texture of the surface quite brightly, and disguising the painted details. The streaky bits in the hair to the left are light reflected off the surface. Pity! Amandajm (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I really made myself clear here. I agreed that your image is by far the better image, once I was able to see it in greater resolution. I cannot view it at full resolution.
 * If you sort out why the list of options isn't coming up in Wiki, but only Commons, I think that would fix the problem. Amandajm (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, by list of options I assume you mean the bar reading "Download, Use this file, Use this file, Email a link, Information". I'll take a look at how to make this available on En without clicking through. Dcoetzee 18:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI I've filed a bug about this at and started a thread at Village_pump_(technical) about enabling the download/information bar on En. Dcoetzee 19:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Contributions of User:MacLeinin
Hi Dcoetzee, you will probably remember the small conversation we had at IRC regarding my accidental finding of an article lifted widely from a book. As promised, I went now through all contributions of that user and my first summarizing report of my initial findings is here. How shall we proceed? Regards and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I greatly appreciate your research. At this point it's time to open a WP:CCI on him. Most likely his entire contribution history will be purged. Dcoetzee 03:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've opened a request at WP:CCI now. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Question
Would you know the term that would describe what is wrong with this image? I know when I rotate the camera on a close image it does a sort of fisheye, but I didn't realize that it actually would be that bad until I found that image. This is the only one that I know of it happening in, but is there any way to correct this now or do you think that it will be like this for good? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is simply how wide-angle lenses work, they make close parts of objects appear larger than farther away parts of objects. If you don't want that effect, you need to stand farther away from the subject and use your optical zoom to zoom in on it, in order to use your telephoto length lens. If you don't have a zoom lens, you can achieve a similar effect by standing farther away and subsequently cropping it. See wide angle lens and in particular File:Focal_length.jpg. Dcoetzee 03:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, it all makes sense now. Thanks again! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Np! If you do want perspective correction for the barrel distortion in that image I'm sure it's possible to fix in this case. Let me know. Dcoetzee 18:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive
Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Duplication detector
I have experienced problems with the above when trying to compare John_R._Ellis with the principal source. I then tried downloading the source as a web page, and the download failed – this is presumably what caused the comparator to fail in its checking. I then proceeded to save the contents of the main source text to a .txt file. I uploaded it using the lower section which caters for uploads, yet it failed to recognise that a file had already been 'browsed'. You held would be most appreciated. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ohconfucius, I'm not sure what you mean, but I was able to successfully copy the body of the article and upload it using the advanced form as a text file, and it showed valid results. All you have to do is click Browse, select the file, and hit OK, then hit the Compare button. If this doesn't work, what browser are you using? Dcoetzee 00:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question re: list; feedback sought
Hi, Derrick. :) We've got a copyright question where the contributor is seeking feedback to a table he'd like to implement. The listing is at Copyright problems/2011 July 19 (currently second down of the manual listings, but I will isolate it if I can finish the rest of the day). I have some concerns that he may be right to worry, since the table is described by its poster as "my personal interpretation and point-of-view", which clearly removes it from the realm of fact. But there are some differences in the table as implemented in the article, and I wanted not only a second opinion but a second opinion from somebody who may be familiar with the subject. :D Can you weigh in? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. :-) Dcoetzee 01:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I Miss You ...
... on IRC! Where have you been? :o) [hugz] Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * *hugs* I'll be around :-) Miss you too. Dcoetzee 14:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thank you! I appreciate it. :-) Dcoetzee 00:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Resources for Wikipedian Student Organizations
Hi, Derrick. I've sent you a message about testing out some new resources for student organizations. Hope you can lend a hand, and feel free to follow up with questions at studentclubs@undefinedwikimedia.org. Wolliff (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

List of notable people with anorexia nervosa
Heh, I tagged it and didn't realize you had started editing it. :P Feel free to remove it whenever. Cheers =) -- slakr \ talk / 04:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Np, tag was needed :-) Dcoetzee 08:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:My Little Pony - Friendship is Magic - Rainbow Dash.png
 Thanks for uploading File:My Little Pony - Friendship is Magic - Rainbow Dash.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paradox (theorem prover)


The article Paradox (theorem prover) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable software stub. Unreferenced after more than five years. No claim of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-User
Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-User has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

AC0
Hello

You wrote here that it is not known whether AC0 is contained in regular languages. But I think palindromes are in AC0, and this is not a regular language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.104.247.2 (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think I was unclear. I wrote that REGULAR &ne; AC0 because PARITY is in REGULAR but not in AC0, which is true. I didn't say anything about whether AC0 is contained in REGULAR (as you note, it is not), but this would be useful information to add. Dcoetzee 02:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed here:. Kind regards --129.104.247.2 (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I added a ref. Thanks! Dcoetzee 03:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

SVG version of SSA examples?
Hey,

You uploaded your three example graphs for converting code to the SSA form using the PNG file format. The description says you created them using Illustrator, so could you also provide them as a vector graphic? The files are: Thanks! Tobi 17:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.46.135.227 (talk)
 * I created these 8 years ago, so I'll be awful lucky if the original Illustrator files haven't been lost. I don't think they'd be hard to recreate though. Dcoetzee 17:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

geonotice query
See my comment at Geonotice. Thanks, -- John Vandenberg (chat) 02:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

NPG update?
A discussion at Village pump (miscellaneous) referenced the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute article, which might have some indirect bearing on that issue. I don't see much in that article from after 2010, and Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-03-21/News_and_notes makes it sound like not much had happened with it as of last March. I don't want to ask you to do anything improper or unwise, but can you comment on whether there's been any resolution to the case, or point us toward any useful recent sources? Thanks! Wnt (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Wnt, all the most recent updates relevant to NPG were in the Signpost (Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-12-06/GLAM-WIKI_London, Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-03-21/News_and_notes). I'm not aware of any other developments. Dcoetzee 20:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - and good luck, for all our sakes! No doubt in my mind you're in the right here. Wnt (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you :-) Dcoetzee 21:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Individually-launched copyvio checks - any thoughts?
Because the WP-Google talks wrt to copyvio searching checks (replacing CorenSearchBot) don't seem to have progressed since August... do you have any thoughts about this - a downloadable locally executable tool? Since anyone can do 100 automated Google searches a day for free, and something is better than nothing during a crisis? Novickas (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that a downloadable locally executable tool is the only way to go at the present time. I have a concept for a tool that may enable us to avert the crisis by playing fast and loose with the Google ToS. Basically it would be a semiautomatic client that has a web view and tells you what to type into Google, then grabs the results and checks them - consequently there would be no limit on the number of searches possible except the user's patience. By requiring the user to actually type in the search, we would also avoid setting off their detection algorithms for automatic searches. Dcoetzee 02:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi D and thanks for the reply. So this would involve hitting Enter or making a mouse click for every 20 words or whatever an appropriate string length would be? I think the people working articles nommed for DYK, GA, FA, would be willing to go thru that - we could ask at their project pages. The overworked new page patrollers might justifiably feel it's too much, there are about 1,500 new EN articles a day, no? But even if it doesn't help them as much as Corenbot did, I'd think it would still be a project benefit, for CCIs too. One question, would this involve an editor's individual selection of text to copy/paste as tool input, or do you see some way for the tool to do that? Using, maybe, WP's 'print version' of an article? Regards, Novickas (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're talking to Maggie D about it. Hope it works out, Novickas (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To be conservative I would force users to type in the search terms. This results in realistic typing delays that their system is less likely to reject, and is less likely to fall afoul of their terms of service. Good search phrases do not have to be more than 2-8 words. Dcoetzee 18:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We urgently need something, when CorenSearchBot isn't around! I've been working on the NPP backlog over the past few weeks, and the number of blatant copyvios that manage to get through to a month old or thereabouts is scarey! My CSD log has a huge percentage of copyvios in it.  Not good stuff.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 03:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Pesky, I understand this is urgent. I'm a bit overloaded at the moment but I do hope some coders will rise to the challenge. Try listing on Village pump (technical) for the right audience, perhaps? The wiki-research-l is another plausible outlet. Dcoetzee 04:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

On behalf of the project, thanks for the tools

 * Consider this an enthusiastic "hear hear". :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you :-) Dcoetzee 04:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Article-cv2
Template:Article-cv2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gh87 (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

History of Firefox
Just to note since you were one of the last editors on the other related pages: I formally suggested that each version should be returned to its own page. Lostinlodos (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Commented on talk page. Dcoetzee 19:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Mention
I wanted to thank you again for your help with my research on the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami a few months back. I wanted to give you a heads up about being mentioned on this PBS blog. Cheers! Madcoverboy (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for the link. :-) Dcoetzee 19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Duplication Detector
Hi, I was wondering if duplication detector uses ascii? A comparison of User:Siddhartha Ghai/Sandbox and hi:सदस्य:Siddhartha Ghai/sandbox4 gives me with the devanagari text showing up as gibberish. Can this be fixed? Maybe by setting the output to utf8? Thanks a lot for any help.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The output indicates it read both documents as UTF8... so there is a bug there but it's something else. I'll have to find time to investigate this later. Thanks for the heads up. Dcoetzee 00:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey
REGARDING YOUR FEEDBACK ON MY SANDBOX

Dear Dcoetzee,

hii. thank you for monitoring the content i posted on my sandbox and giving me the feedback. i took your advice and now my content is compiled from a number of different websites and reworded to a large extent. i would greatly appreciate it if you could tell me whether what i posted recently is fine. in case i need to credit any sources please let me know. once again, thank you for your help and please let me know if i have overstepped any of the other violations of wikipedia unknowingly.

-- Padmini.krishna —Preceding undated comment added 11:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

Outing
I see you are attempting to out my real life identity on a Wikipedia discussion page; please cease this activity. Thank you, and God bless. nobs (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What? I have absolutely no interest in your real-life identity or in "outing" you. I'm just trying to determine whether the Conservapedia articles you blatantly copied are copyright violations or not. To do this, I need to determine whether or not you are the user who wrote those articles on Conservapedia. Are you, or are you not? You are free to not answer this question, but if you do the content will likely either have to be deleted or you'll have to contact User:RobSmith on Conservapedia and have them contact OTRS with permission (all this assuming Conservapedia does not transfer copyright from contributors to them, which is unclear to me). Dcoetzee 02:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for any misunderstanding that may have taken place. I WP:AGF. Thank you for your efforts. nobs (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be outing anyway, Nobs, when you have previously made the association yourself: Talk:Grigory Kheifets. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia licensing
Hello Derrick,

I've been made aware of your concerns as per the Conservapedia project's license. It only grants a license to Conservapedia and doesn't affect authors' rights elsewhere.

Best regards,

Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, you're not a credible authority on the law. Conservapedia's copyright statement, which I have read myself, is rather unclear as to whether the authors transfer rights to the Conservapedia project or not (it claims Conservapedia "licenses" the work, which they could not do if they were not the copyright holder). If in fact it does not transfer rights, which is entirely possible, the original author on Conservapedia and the author here on Wikipedia still need to be proven to be the same person. Dcoetzee 03:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Please stop leaving roses
Latin soul is so. The Brazilians are so. Kisses, my love. 12:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.32.38.229 (talk)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

CCI tool
Hi Dcoetzee! I was looking at a CCI page and noticed that the list of pages generated seems to have trouble with extended unicode characters (e.g. "Johan Makeléer" becomes "Johan MakelÃ©er"). I asked Moonriddengirl about this and she pointed me in your direction. Is this something you could help with? 28bytes (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, please see my response at User talk:Moonriddengirl. Dcoetzee 02:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response! 28bytes (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Tool_apprenticeship
At Village_pump_(proposals), I suggest you clarify what you mean by "leave comments and feedback on the proposal's talk page" - with a link.

I think you mean Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship? Which is why I wrote this. (If that's wrong, please correct it)

I'm just concerned that people will start commenting in three different places (or more). Cheers,  Chzz  ► 07:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is what I meant, thank you! I'll update the other two places similarly. Dcoetzee 15:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerns
Hiya. Re. let me know if your concerns have been addressed - please forgive me for responding here, not there, for reasons I will try to justify!

I am enthusiastic about any change to RfA-processes (proci ‽), but I'm jaded, from the voluminous and unproductive previous "debates".

The Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship page is already getting long, hard-to-follow, and somewhat repetitive. I've tried to follow it, but it's hard; in particular, I struggled to read the comments by Fred Gandt, and almost felt like responding, because a lot of it seemed based on things I consider obvious misconceptions - e.g. admins have a position of responsibility that they are publicly answerable about. Their position is not to be taken lightly and so forth; I'm sure you will understand why I just read that, and think, "Oh my God, how do I even start to explain why this is wrong, wrong wrong".

So; I will tell you my own 2p-worth;

a) I think 'admin' shouldn't be a big deal, and should be changed so it isn't (easier de-sysop, mostly), b) as I can't see that happening in the next decade, next idea might be "trainee admin" (carefully watched/mentored, but with the same SysOp right whilst in-training). As that is unlikely to get support, c) I support unbundling/"part-admin" - which is what you're proposing - but in the interests of getting any change, I'd recommend: (i) Keep It Simple - e.g. just three possible roles - 'deletor', 'protector', 'blocker' (for wont of better terms; it sounds like something from Lemmings!) (ii) try to propose a small experimental trial, on a fixed small number of candidates.

I would support almost any change, up to and including a proposal for "On Thursdays, Admins must wear a funny hat and type backwards" - purely because any change would show we're capable of progress, and because I have a genuine fear that the poison-ivy of stagnation is throttling our beloved Wiki.

Kindest regards, and once again my apologies for splitting discussion.  Chzz  ► 17:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Chzz, apologies for the verbosity of the talk page. :-) Right now my main goal is to anticipate concerns that will arise when it goes to RfC and list them on the proposal page, and I'm trying to just figure out where people are coming from. I already shamelessly stole your idea of doing a trial (which I call a phase 1 process trial), and I have in fact limited the rights that can be requested during phase 1 to only four (delete, protect, block, editprotected). I'm not going to go for the roles you propose though, though, because I think it'll confuse the issue that people can request multiple rights at once (e.g. vandal patrol almost always needs both protect and block), and to a lesser extent confuses the issue that a single user can accumulate multiple rights over time. I also have your concerns about general conservatism on Wikipedia; see Ironholds' excellent essay on that. Dcoetzee 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the simplicity of that "phase 1 process trial" - except, I dislike the name of it, because it reminds me of *twitch* Pending *twitch* Changes *twitch*.
 * As I read it, that's a possible 6 x 4 = 24 people - although some could presumably apply for more than one? Or maybe it should be 'exclusive', thus it would be 24 folks. Maybe even that is too many; it needs a balance between enough-to-show-some-progress v. not-too-many-to-keep-a-very-close-eye-on.
 * I guess by "Users will not yet be able to request permanent use", you're thinking that, at the end of it, they'd just go to RfA (if they wanted)? Which seems reasonable, for a first shot at it.
 * I like the idea of limited right-groups, and perhaps "delete, protect, block, editprotected" is about as good as it could get...for a try, at least. I'm not personally convinced that just prot is much use to anyone, but I could be wrong. One small fear I have there is, a person with only prot might be more inclined to prot for an edit-war, instead of blocking - which is marginally but debatably against WP:PROT...that could cause a bit of hassle. Just a thought.
 * Despite my first comment here re. the name/PC being in jest, there is a serious point there; if/when you get to present it as a proposal, I suggest you don't frame it as a 'phase one' at all; instead, (and again per KISS), I'd just propose THIS - for what it is. Any future proposal is a future proposal, and speculating too much about where it might lead could muddy the waters in any discussion. You know how most of us can't read >140 characters; hence it's best to say "Here is an idea. It's simple. It can't do much harm. It might do lots of good. Do you agree to it?" type of thing.  Chzz  ► 18:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading your response I realised my proposal was unclear. :-) I decided to make it a limit of exactly 10 people (regardless of which/how many tools they request). I'm avoiding permanent granting of tools because I want to avoid any effects that would outlast the process trial itself, but I do want to get some apprentice review in, so I'm suggesting trial extension requests as an alternative. I agree that just prot is not likely to be of use to many people, and expect it to be requested in combination with block, but hey, if some requester makes a good case maybe they'll get it. I've eliminated the "phase 1" language, to avoid calling to memory pending changes, but I do still want to frame it as a trial, without speculating too much about what it will look like in its final form (except to say that the final form will have permanent granting of tools). I also added a nutshell to the top of the page to give a one-sentence summary. Take another quick look now and let me know if it makes sense? Thanks! Dcoetzee 20:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure; sounds good to me; as I said, any change is better than no change - and I do think this in the right direction. It looks good; and I'm siure, now it'll be ripped to pieces and argued about word-by-word. Still, there's no deadlne.  Chzz  ► 06:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Good news
After a long wait, my usurp request on Commons was granted! Pinetalk 22:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yay glad to hear it. :-) Now you can be Pine everywhere! Dcoetzee 09:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fantastic; I can stop checking back on that Commons page and poking their 'crats with no response. Yay. Hope you're less lonesome.  Chzz  ► 17:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Your handling of your proposal for tool apprenticeship
just wanted to say that I think you're handling the process of fine tuning and shaping your proposal beautifully. Really listening to others and then following up with real changes whilst remaining cool and collected. Quite impressive human behaviour (I am not often impressed). Keep it up. The proposal is really beginning to look acceptable (this does not imply or shall I admit to any implied or otherwise support here within notwithstanding etc. etc. Amen) fg 23:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the positive feedback. I hope we can eventually find something we can all agree on. :-) Dcoetzee 14:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding more functionality to the DYK tools
Hey there! I'm trying to add more functionality to the DYK tools. Would you mind taking a look at my proposals at the village pump and on the DYK talk page and perhaps give me feedback? I appreciate your time and thank you in advance. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. :-) Dcoetzee 01:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologise, as I said, I'm a lady of little technical knowledge. Could I have a clarification on what you've done and how I can utilise it? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 02:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to worry! I've seen your comment now. If there's anything else I should know about please do say so but I think that's it. Lots of wiki-love to you sir! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 02:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for weird comment placement :-) And you as well. Dcoetzee 02:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

KISS again
See User_talk:Thryduulf

Despite wanting this to work, I really think it should be easier: something like "6 users, 1 month, deletion only, will end in 1 month, will NOT get to keep it (can RfA if they want), will discuss more after that" - to have the best chance of success. FWIW, IMHO, YMMV, and so forth.  Chzz  ► 01:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Chzz. That's actually really close to what the trial already suggests - permanent tool requests are not part of the trial, and trials are limited to 1 month. I chose 10 instead of 6 but that's not a huge difference. I would be willing to further reduce the number of tools, but IMO that would also reduce the number of supporters interested in the process. Dcoetzee 02:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Apprenticeship tools
Hi. I think this: "...and even administrators are not generally trusted with checkuser, oversight, or bureaucrat rights." is an unfortunate choice of words and does not fall  within  our concept of good faith. More accurately, all users are trusted - period. Access to certain  user rights  is always through  a process of application made by  those who  think they  need them - there is no question whatsoever that they are not  trusted members of the community  until  consensus decides otherwise. Just for example, I am  reasonably sure that  if  they  felt they needed checkuser or oversight rights, many would stand a possible chance of being granted them  if they  applied for them, but  they  may not want  them  because they are busy  enough  with  the rights they  already  possess,  and if they are not  bureaucrats, it's because they don't consider themselves to have sufficient experience and/or activity in that area; this does not  automatically make them  untrustworthy  editors or admins. (Note: I would have posted this on your project, but the talk  page now seems to  be mainly  taken up  by  the voting process). Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a nudge - although you can't be expected to be logged in round the clock. And just to let you know that although I don't support this proposal, it's well presented, and if it gets consensus, I'll be one of the first to help make it work, so please don't take it personally :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * D was otherwise occupied when you left your last message (and is probably still asleep). I agree with you that that was somewhat unfortunate wording. However, I think his intent is clear: administrators do not have higher tools because the community has not explicitly expressed its trust that they will perform well in that position, and the same applies to this proposal. I guess it would be better worded as something like "having rollback does not mean an individual will be trusted to be a capable admin, just as being an administrator does not guarantee one will be approved to hold the oversight/checkuser/bureaucrat rights." Would you agree? sonia ♫ 20:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really  Sonia, because with  all  due respect, from  my  own experience I'm not  quite sure how much  trust  you  personally  have in candidates for proper adminship, and my  goal  is to  help  future candidates avoid such  an ordeal to  get  tools that  will  enhance their workflow.. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's put it another way: not everyone is a policeman - or wants to be, but that does not mean that those who aren't are potentially dishonest. Policemanship is also for life, and normal people don't throw rocks at the kids in the police academy. What is needed is a more trustworthy voting contingent, not yet another playground for bullies to  be nasty  with  impunity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)


 * Hi Kudpung. I think our disagreement here surrounds different understandings (or rather degrees) of the word "trust." When I say someone is "not trusted with a tool" I don't mean necessarily that we believe they would abuse the tool. Rather, I mean that the community has not evaluated the candidate's experience and explicitly agreed that they are capable of using the tool correctly and responsibly. To go back to the bank/uncle analogy, I may not trust my bank to take good care of my kids, but I would trust them not to kill them; and I may not trust my uncle with all my income, but I might loan him $10. I will do my best to clarify this. Dcoetzee 01:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll just  copy  this comment  here from  my  talk  page a few months ago (the bold type is mine):
 * I think that one of the problems with wt:RFA proposals is that people will hijack each thread at wt:RFA to revive their own hobbyhorses. So any reform package that involves changing policy needs to be structured to contain multiple threads at the same time - I'd suggest an RFC with separate transcluded RFCs for each option of change. Those that are at peren need a section that explains the previous reasons for rejection and ideally makes a case that the past reasons for rejection no longer apply or can be mitigated. Getting consensus for change is difficult, and yes people will come in at any stage, but we did get consensus for BLPprod. An easier and possibly earlier phase for RFA reform is to float some of the ideas that don't need consensus to enact. I may jot a few ideas down at user:WereSpielChequers/RFA reform. ϢereSpielChequers 6:13 am, 20 March 2011, Sunday (8 months, 12 days ago) (UTC+7)
 * Regarding this quotation: The proposal does, in fact, contain a section that refutes in detail the (very weak) arguments at WP:PEREN, as well as discusses several other more compelling arguments that arose during later discussions. I'm less clear about the hijacking problem; although I haven noticed some commenters trying to advance their own opinions about RfA reform, I've tried to squelch these tangents. I don't want to have multiple parallel proposals unless there's a reason to do so. Dcoetzee 01:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There are people whom I  wouldn't  trust  with  an editing  window, let  alone sysop  tools, but  I  would prefer the syntax  to  be modified to  wards a more positive or optimistic positive  as suggested, such  as the metaphorical  glass of water that  is  half full  rather than half empty.  I tried to  explain  it  with the policeman analogy: we don't  raise matters of trust  here until it  needs to  be discussed for a specific application for a user right. Otherwise, your statement  reads, at  least  to  me, that  you  don't  trust  anyone with  anything  until  they  have proven their worth through  a grueling application process -  I've known people even get  quite upset when they've had autopatrolled or rollbacker refused.  Good faith  is one of our core policies, but "Ha! I  don't  trust  you  until  you've suffered the iniquities of RfA -  and passed"  is not, and unfortunately, that's part of the reason why  we're not  getting  many  candidates for adminship, and I  don't  believe unbundling  the tools is going  to  change that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally understand this sentiment and I have revised the page to try and avoid suggesting that non-admins are not trustworthy (I know at least one non-admin that I would trust with my life). ::::Responding to your other comment: "What is needed is a more trustworthy voting contingent, not yet another playground for bullies to be nasty with impunity." I understand your ideas about conducting voting using a different set of voters, and I would be happy to consider a proposal like that, but here I think straightforward discussion can be achieved by another path: because apprenticeship is a comparatively small matter, that gives participants in the discussions the power to stomp out digressions with impunity. For example, if someone pointed out a mistake in an unrelated area (say a misunderstanding of deletion policy when requesting protection), others could either remind the commentor that that's irrelevant, or if the discussion gets out of control, hide it in a box (long threaded discussions in general are discouraged). The option of doing "conditional support" instead of "oppose" will also help to avoid polarizing discussion. The point is not just to create a tendency toward straightforward discussion, but to actively enforce it, and I would personally assist in that. I've modified the proposal to mention these discussion management measures. Dcoetzee 04:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No matter if this would ever happen, you deserve it

 * Also, to clarify some parts of the message, since I am not native english speaker I probably should have pick better words, I didn't mean by "unfortunatelly among many good people, also has some users who usually oppose everyting" that those people are bad or not good :) just that it's sometimes hard to negotiate anything with such, no matter if it's usefull change or not. I appreciate feedback from all users, negative feedback is of course very useful in many cases. Petrb (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate it and also hope others will be motivated to propose fruitful changes. :-) Dcoetzee 01:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strange as it may sound, I heartily commend Derrick's initiative. However, I just don't believe it  addresses any specific issues - indeed, it's never been clearly explained what issues, if any,  it directly addresses. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung, I responded to your note about that - I added the section Tool_apprenticeship based on your comment. (please respond at Wikipedia_talk:Tool_apprenticeship to avoid forking discussion) I also appreciate you commending the initiative regardless of whether you agree with it. :-) Dcoetzee 02:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Look Derrick, I understand, but  that  still  does not  say  why we need it. backlogs aren't  that  much  more serious than they  usually  are, and those are mainly  FfR which  most  admins aren't  interested in (nor me), and the more difficult  AfD which every  one skips hoping  someone else will  do  it -  and that  means that  between us admins, we don't  have the experience for them  either, so  the Zauberlehrlinge won't  do them either. It certainly  does not  address the main  issue which  is the vile voting  that  goes on  at  RfA, which  we'll  still  have, and as I  said on  the RfC, any  mistakes made by  the mentees will  be taken down and used in  evidence -  at  least  by  the wolf-pack. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Difficult AfDs in my experience require more time (reading long discussions, relevant guidelines, and careful consideration) rather than more expertise, for the most part - so giving admins more time (by having apprentices closing straightforward AfDs) is a direct means of addressing them. As for RfA, it's not that I don't think the attitude of voters at RfA is an issue worth addressing, it is a big problem - but it's not one that I aim to address with this particular proposal. At least, I hope apprenticeship experience will give candidates more confidence to run, despite the prevailing attitudes. It's one piece of the puzzle. Dcoetzee 23:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Tool Apprenticeship
How would the community determine eligibility for someone to receive, say, the delete button? Would it be a process like RfA? Would the threshold be particularly high? I just want to get a better understanding of what you envision apprenticeship would be like.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 05:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Master Expert, the main criteria would be the three listed at the top of the proposal, but beyond that it's really up to what the people in the discussion think. The intention is that the many restrictions placed on the apprentice, along with the "conditional support" opinion, would make them more comfortable with supporting candidates they're uncertain about. Exactly what standards will emerge is impossible to anticipate. There's a mock up at Requests for tool apprenticeship. Dcoetzee 05:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response! I really appreciate that. OK, now here's my second question &mdash; would somebody with a relatively low edit count with moderate experience in the deletion process be able to attain the delete button if he could demonstrate a solid understanding of the relevant policies? I'm fairly active lately and I think I'm uncontroversial, but I don't have a huge edit count or anything. I'm much more interested in maintenance work like NPP or AfD, having some experience in both, and I'd like to help out a little more in those fields. I'm not overly interested in acquiring the block button, protect button, etc. Plus I'm terrified of what would happen to me if I were ever to submit a request for adminship, even if I did have a higher edit count. To be honest, I doubt I would ever pass an RfA. I know how self-deprecating that sounds, but I admit it. I don't think the community has as much confidence in my judgment as I'd like to think. I've seen other people go through the process feeling like they'd pass, and then they wound up completely destroyed for things they never even thought would be issues. Do you think I'd even have a snowball's chance in hell at getting even the delete button? I was a bit hesitant to post this anywhere, but I'm ready to take whatever answer I'll get.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 05:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My advice is (provided the proposal passes) to just go for it. The worst thing that'll get happen if you'll get rejected and get some friendly advice on what they'd like to see you do before you come back. Discussions are intended to be short and relatively unstressful, kinda like an AfD, so there's no reason to be terrified of it like you are of RfA. For what it's worth, I wouldn't rule out passing an RfA someday either. :-) Side note: to increase your chances of passing, I would go for just one of NPP or AfD to start out with, not both (whichever you're more experienced with). Dcoetzee 06:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I mean, I've actually been offered an RfA nomination back in 2009 when I was a bit more active by two established editors, but I respectfully declined them because I wasn't sure if I really wanted the toolset. I guess it's obvious that I'm a bit lacking in confidence (lol). I've been that way my whole life, but I also do stand by what I believe in and I really want to be of value to Wikipedia. Maybe if I became more active as a vandalfighter, I'd consider going up for RfA. In my eyes, the standards for adminship are just way too high, and I think it's actually hurting this site more than it's helping.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 06:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

xxxterm
I've written an editorial for OSNews; yesterday it got reviewed and accepted, so I added it and requested move back. Please comment. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist notice
Re: Tool apprenticeship I wasn't sure if you were planning on letting this run for more than the standard 30 days for the RfC; however, I would suggest it gets added as a watchlist note well before you plan on closing it (or having it closed)(maybe after elections are over) to ensure the widest possible participation an prevent any accusations of insufficient notice for such a radical change. (If this has already been discussed or planned or rejected forgive me, but like Petrb above I can tell you put a lot of work into this and would hate to see it go down the drain over a technicality) Best of luck. Crazynast 09:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Crazynas, I haven't really done a major RfC before, so I'm not sure what length is best for one like this. I've never proposed a watchlist notice before either, but I just figured out that I can request one at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. What length of time do you think is appropriate for this notice? 24 hours? I'll probably wait a little while till discussion dies down or it falls off WP:CENT, so that I'm not taking up multiple means of advertising simultaneously. I'll extend the RfC at that point if needed to ensure there's room for at least a week of discussion following the watchlist notice. It will of course have to be closed by an uninvolved user. Thanks for the advice! Dcoetzee 10:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose, I didn't even know that page existed... I was just going to ask at WP:AN but decided coming here was a better first step.  Good thing I did, if you're not planning on taking that route until the discussion dies down.  I'd think you would let the notice run for the rest of the RFC to give it the widest exposure, but then again maybe that's overboard for the trial limited as it now is and 24 hours would be plenty.  Keep in mind however that people are funny about this kind of reform and a certain mindset of editor is going nitpick every procedural detail if it doesn't go their way. I really knew it would be closed by an uninvolved editor, I think I meant to say  "well before consensus to close is reached".Crazynast 10:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I suggested 24 hours because I don't think they'd let me run a global watchlist notice for the whole RfC length. :-) I don't think I need to run it yet because I'm still listed in this week's Signpost and on WP:CENT, and that's a lot of exposure as it is. I don't want to monopolise all the advertising mechanisms at once, and spreading it out will give me more time to consider opinions as they come in. Dcoetzee 12:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fastily (appropriately given their username) beat us to it. Crazynast 09:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Reproposed as things seem to be quieting down on the RfC currently.  Crazynast 01:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

CSD proposal
Hey, I was disappointed when you didn't chime in here. I'd love to hear your thoughts! causa sui (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Glad to be helpful! I hope it'll help finally tackle those critical backlogs and make it a bit more fun too :-) (posting over EDGE from my new SIM!) Dcoetzee 14:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The screenshot looks good, but the Windows binary (exe) download link doesn't work for me - it returns a small XML page describing an "Access denied" error. (Windows 7, Firefox 7.0.1 FWIW) -- John of Reading (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies, it should be fixed now. Please give it another try. Dcoetzee 18:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's working, thanks. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, let me know if you have any feedback! Dcoetzee 22:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Persondata-o-matic feedback
I've just discovered, at Mizuho Aimoto, that the "return" key is a shortcut for the "Save and next" button. Can this be changed? I was trying to hit backspace... (This is fun; makes a change from fixing typos) -- John of Reading (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi John, this is an intentional feature, to streamline rapid entry - and I think a better way to deal with it is to provide a "Back" button that returns you to previous entries, so that you can revise them if you make a mistake. I haven't implemented this yet but I will. :-) If hitting the wrong key is really problematic for you even with the Back button, I might consider making it a user configurable setting. Let me know what you think. Dcoetzee 19:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've only done it once so far, so don't do anything complicated. I don't think a "Back" button is needed. It was easy enough to find the bad edit in "My contributions" and sort it out manually. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you looking to save me effort, but the Back button isn't as complicated as you think, it would still save your edit the first time around, it would just let you go back and make another edit to a page you already edited. I think it'd be useful for me since I often realise a bit too late I made a small mistake. Dcoetzee 20:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Back would be nice. I found myself skipping pages then wanting to return to them. Only if it's not too difficult, of course. sonia ♫ 04:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I edited someone's userspace draft. Perhaps best to stick to real articles? -- John of Reading (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I add persondata to user space drafts all the time (under the assumption that the user may not be inclined to add that info themselves, and otherwise it'll sit in the backlog category forever). I could make an option to remove this if you really don't like it. Dcoetzee 01:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, don't bother to make any change here. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a great Christmas

 * Thank you so much, Pesky :-) And a Merry Christmas to you too. *hugs* Dcoetzee 01:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:TAP
Hello Dcoetzee. I would just like to thank you for your hard work and contributions to the tool apprenticeship proposal. I really hope the proposal would be accepted by the community. Have a good day! --   Luke      (Talk)   02:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it! I hope the best decision for the project is reached. Dcoetzee 09:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Secure error messages in software systems for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Secure error messages in software systems is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Secure error messages in software systems until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pnm (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

P v NP and Math Ed
Hello Dcoetzee: I am new user and have been watching P versus NP article for a long time as a reader. Youvan is an associate of mine, and you commented on his smiley face cartoon. He asks me to ask you if you would drop a critical comment, here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Relativistic_P_%3D_NP_Computation.png. As far as I can tell, he is trying to describe something very trival by relating Einstein's time dilation effect to waiting for a slow "P" algo to do the work of a hypothetical, fast "NP" algo while the traveller is away, near v = c, and then returns to see that the "P" algo has finished. In the traveller's time frame, the calculation looked quick, although it might have scaled as N! or worse on the ground. In the static time frame, the calculation took a very long time. It's just the Twin's Paradox combined with P v NP.

FYI, our nonprofit foundation is mainly planning to work in math education using Youvan's tuple images as a primitive in games that might require various advances in the player's understanding of math. You look busy on here, but any comments or directions or help on math ed is appreciated. My Talk Page is nude. Right now, we are in Mathematica, but if we want to hit the kids, we need to be in another language. One of our guys is looking into Java - under the premise of their old adage. So, Youvan might be off on P v NP for a while, but the foundation is focused on Math Education. Any help is appreciated.

Maybe I could start an article on Educational Mathematics Games, especially those that are PD. We need to get the kids off pure entertainment and back into some fun math! Noncanonical (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping the Offline project!

 * Glad to help! I actually forgot that I had created this tool. I've recently been investigating image/media gathering and publishing solutions for offline Wikipedias, so I'm very curious what your solution is presently for that. Dcoetzee 09:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Jean Etienne Lìotard - Ritratto di Maria Adelaide di Francia vestita alla turca - Google Art Project.jpg
I wanted to ask you, how did you save this picture from the Google Art Project? Thanks for your time, Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I created custom tools for the purpose of extracting images from the Google Art Project and assembling them into single JPEG files. I've uploaded all of their images to Wikimedia Commons, so no one else should have a need to do so (although the gigapixel images were uploaded at reduced resolution due to the 100 MB limit). Dcoetzee 23:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters
Hi Dcoetzee,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You have mail from Banaticus
Seriously, you have (e)mail re: the ambassador program. :) Banaticus (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thank you :-) I miss NZ but have much to do here. Will see you around. Dcoetzee 08:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello for Homework and Friendliness
I'll be at the campus ambassador training tomorrow. Thank you in advance for training us! Michelev (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I look forward to meeting you. :-) Dcoetzee 03:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi Dcoetzee,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent Moves
Nice job. :-)
 * One problem: It goes older, but not newer.
 * One suggestion: Move "to" might be more useful than move "from" (selectable "to" or "from" would be really nifty).
 * One enhancement: Tabular display would be cool.

Thanks. :- ) DCS  19:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Newer just needs to be implemented. :-) Can you please clarify your other suggestions? I'm not quite sure what you're imagining for these suggested features. Thanks! Dcoetzee 19:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeap, older works now. I think it would be more useful to see for example, "items moved to Wikipedia space", not "items moved from Wikipedia space".

Tabular meaning aligned or in a table, e.g., | Time | From | To | Who | Notes |. I think this might be a lot of work for programmer or processor. Thanks. <span style="color:rgb(50, 200,200);font-weight:bold;">:- ) DCS  19:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A tabular view is no big deal, but I'm curious, what purpose could a list of moves to Wikipedia space serve? Can you explain or give examples? Dcoetzee 19:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind that request, I think that information is available here. <span style="color:rgb(50, 200,200);font-weight:bold;">:- ) DCS  20:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

NPP
Thank you for your posting at  WT:NPP. I had already  made a bold mention on  the NPP  main  page, but  it  is true that  the talk  page may  have may  watchers. Thanks again for doing that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I hope it'll help the project to have all moves into mainspace patrolled. :-) Dcoetzee 11:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Dcoetzee/Test submission has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Test submission, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
<div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;padding-bottom:0.5em;width:20em;color:black;margin-bottom: 1.5em;margin-left: 1.5em;width: 90%;"> Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.)
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the [ reviewer's talk page]. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Persondata-o-matic
I think I brokes it. :< — Moe   ε  10:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It got confused by persondata containing a link with a | character. Which they probably shouldn't anyway. But it does need to be robust against this sort of thing. Thanks for the report! Dcoetzee 10:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. By the way, is there a way to turn the part of the display window into a white background for the part displaying the article text? A grey background with black text can get strenuous on the eyes with all the wikitext. Either that or a slight increase in font size, either one would help greatly. :p — Moe   ε  13:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm right now I'm just using the default text box, which is black on grey to indicate it's not editable, but that stuff wouldn't be hard to change I think. Just need to figure out the appropriate place to stick the customization options. Dcoetzee 23:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Interview?
My apologies for the non-personalized note; I've got several people to contact here. We're looking for administrators who would be willing to be interviewed by students as a part of Wikipedia's WP:United States Education Program. Dr. Jonathan Obar is teaching the course, and it's a study in how Wikipedia is governed and how administrators are selected. If you're not interested, you may either ignore this invitation or remove your name from the list of admins we've contacted. Thanks, <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Help A image needed.
Hey, I'm konarak. I am currently developing an article on Berkeley Robotics and Human Engineering Laboratory. The article will need a image of some it's Exoskeletons. I need help. User:Killiondude suggested me to contact you. You can find that article on my sanndbox. It's primitive. but chances are high of it getting into DYK if there is an image. Thank you. --Kondicherry (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Kondicherry, the lab where these are housed is indeed very near to me, but I'll need to file a request to get access to them for photography. I'll get on that. Dcoetzee 22:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That would be helpful. And yeah another article Ekso Bionics needs the same images which recently got nominated for DYK. I'll ask for help on Wikipedia Club at Berkeley. Thank you.--Kondicherry (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata
The Persondata template has been listed for deletion or modification at Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30. Since your Persondata-O-matic application would be affected if the template is deleted or modifed I am leaving this notice. --Kumioko (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Mail
<b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b>talk 08:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia Mumble
oh nice.

Open is better. I love this new idea. Thanks for this. :) --Tegra3 (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Lunch tomorrow!
Hi, thanks for signing up for the meetup/lunch at the Wikimedia Foundation. Just a reminder that this is happening at noon tomorrow, Saturday the 4th. Our office is located at 149 New Montgomery Street in San Francisco, a short walk from the Montgomery Station BART stop – please see the meetup page for more details. Looking forward to seeing you there! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Testing
This is a test. Dcoetzee 06:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
Haagen Dazs--08:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interivew
Dear Dcoetzee, (your name was posted HERE by another admin).

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

RevDel RfC
Hi, Derrick. Because you participated in last spring’s discussions on WT:REVDEL about possibly removing RD5, one of the RevDel criteria, you might like to weigh in on this RfC. It basically puts forth a proposal from last May, which was supposed to become a live RfC around that time but never did. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)