User talk:Huntster/Archive 6

= 2007, September =

Picture of Chloë
(X-Posted) Are you saying that the image you posted on Chloë Agnew is not a modification of any image that was found on the Internet or a promotional image (or other copyrighted image)? Remember, simply modifying an existing copyright image does not grant you the right to copyright/copyleft it yourself. -- Huntster  T • @ • C 08:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The image I uploded to wikipedia was make by myself using paper and wax pencil...and scanner to the computer. This a free image.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitthus (talk • contribs) 08:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) Thank you for the clarification. I would strongly suggest that you add wording to that effect to the image page itself, or if you would prefer, I'd be happy to do this for you.  I'm sorry if I came off strongly, but I'm very picky when it comes to licenses. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 08:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you are looking for Brazilian userboxen, check out Userboxes/Location/Brazil to get started. Welcome to Wikipedia, and if you need any assistance, don't hesitate to leave me a message. Cheers! --  Huntster  T • @ • C 08:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope it is all right now. Thanks. Mitthus  - 09:36, 1 September 2007

Note that this image was later determined to be a photomanip of a copyright image.

Please explain to me...
Please explain how The Avenue Mall is promotional material. I'm new to this and I'd like to try to improve my articles. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murfreesboro (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) I'll be honest, given it was a full month ago that this article was created, I cannot remember exact reasons why I prodded it for deletion. In any case, the deleting admin must have agreed with me in this situation.  More than likely, it was the way the article was worded, perhaps not maintaining a neutral POV, presenting material in the form of an advertisement, having a lack of notability or acceptable sources, or maybe a combination of these and/or other factors.  I honestly cannot tell you at this point.
 * What I can provide you are some links on how to best write articles. Check out The perfect article, Guide to writing better articles, Guide to layout, and the various links provided in side columns and footers on those pages.  There are lots of resources for writing articles, but the basics are as I mentioned above: maintain a neutral POV, present all issues equally, include material that is potentially useful to a wide audience (not just a single town or small group) and cite appropriate sources.
 * Feel free to ask for assistance any time you need it, I check Wikipedia at least once a day, usually much more :) -- Huntster  T • @ • C 00:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murfreesboro (talk • contribs) 13:09, 3 September 2007

Re: Personnel subsections
(X-Posted) Please refrain from adding subsections to the Personnel section on the Evanescence albums, as they are completely superfluous to the needs of that section, being little more than short lists already. There is no policy or guideline that states subsections must be used in place of bold text, at least none that I can locate. Please do correct me if you can find such a statement, but I looked into this long before now. Cheers. -- Huntster  T • @ • C 23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it follows from WP:MOSHEAD and WP:MOSBOLD that proper headings should be used instead of simulated headers using bold text. Also note that using ";" alone is abusing the HTML  element which is meant to be used together with a  element to create a definition list. Also note that WP:ALBUM says to use subsections, so it's quite reasonable to do the same in the personnel section. So my position is that if there is to be a subsections in the personnel section, they should use proper headings. However, I don't think a subsection is really warranted in this case. --PEJL 05:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) As you prefer, I'll follow up here:
 * Hmm. While I understand that ";" is intended to be used alongside ":" for definition lists, using it alone does not break any code, thus can hardly be considered abuse.  Also remember that in this situation, we are not necessarily needing to fully subdivide or subsection the material into individual sections, which is considerable overkill, merely to set one list apart from another.  I'd be just as happy using the traditional bold markup, but since the text is entirely on one line, it uses five fewer bytes of wikimarkup, which while minor, seems more proper to me.  Yes, I'm a headcase like that :) More specifically, I strongly dislike cluttering up the TOC with such minor material when a single section header suffices. I almost consider this instance to be a type of table header, though it realistically is not. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 06:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it breaks HTML, which is why I consider it abuse. Using ";" or ''' also causes problems for readers using assistive technology, whereas using proper subheadings with proper nesting as outlined at WP:MOSHEAD makes the content accessible to all. I don't think there's really a fundamental difference between subdividing a section or setting one list apart from the other. It's really the same thing. If a section is to be set apart from another, using subheadings is the way to do so, for the reasons listed at WP:MOSHEAD. --PEJL 17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cait g328
Looks like you reverted this person's edits a few months ago, something about a person's name, well, it looks like all she does is go around changing peoples names. Check her contributions. I've undone a lot of them. Ospinad 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) Thanks for the notification; I've removed that particular edit. User originally cited IMDB, as I recall, and the name is not even reflected there anymore.  Seems user is randomly adding made-up names to articles, but time will ultimately tell. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 02:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S.
(X-Posted) Dhaluza, excellent work on the ARCHER article, it is obvious you've put considerable effort into it. Well sourced and well written. Just one thing: while I sort of like the use of quotes in the reference templates, I don't like how they overly clutter the article body area. They aren't required for use, and I would suggest that they be removed...it shouldn't be difficult for an interested reader to locate the appropriate section in the cited text simply by searching or narrowing down based on page number or whatever. Removing them has two positives, it keeps the article body code clean and easier to handle (as I mentioned above) and keeps the citation area clean and easier for readers to use. Any thoughts? -- Huntster  T • @ • C 01:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I deliberately use the quote function on all citations for two reasons: 1) it allows the reader to quickly verify the info and see how it was modified in the the article, and 2) more importantly, web links often go dead and having a quote makes it possible to find content after it has moved, or to find other versions of the material for cross-checking. I think use of the quote function should be encouraged. The visual clutter is a small price to pay, and it is mitigated somewhat by using the 2 template. Dhaluza 02:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you liked Airborne Real-time Cueing Hyperspectral Enhanced Reconnaissance you may also enjoy 300-page iPhone bill Dhaluza 02:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) Heh, don't get me wrong, I love the citation templates, and citation work is a significant portion of what I do on Wikipedia, I just don't like the clutter induced, but you raise valid points. One thing I should mention, however, is that #2 can easily be solved by visiting http://www.webcitation.org and either manually entering websites for archiving or running the "comb" tool over the final Wikipedia article (with "consider all links" checked).  This guarantees that the cited website information will never be lost.  I'm currently in the process of doing this to all the articles I monitor, and do it with all new citations. Extraordinarily handy in a way that the Internet Archive isn't.
 * Also, I should say that I was very impressed with the iPhone bill article, enough so to warrant another Keep in the AfD :) -- Huntster  T • @ • C 04:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, based on your encouragement, I nominated both for GA, so feel free to review or comment. I did cut down the quotes and removed the blank cite fields to clean things up at ARCHER as well. I also tried the Webcitation service. It's a neat idea, but it's a lot of work. We really need an automated bot to do this. I can't imagine doing this all by hand! Dhaluza 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WTVF Edit
The user that added that edit is more-than-likely banned user BenH. He makes edits like this from IP accounts often, 99.99% of which are reverted. There is alot about him on the WP:TVS talk page. Take Care and Enjoy Your Weekend... NeutralHomer T:C 07:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimaina Atlanta
Hello, Thank you for volunteering to be a part of the Atlanta Wikimaina bid southeast team. We are holding meetings weekdays at 7:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. If you are able to make it, that would be great.

We now also have Google group for coordinating this bid. To get updates on the bid and our progress, please join the Google Groups mailing list at Google Groups wikimania-atlanta.

There is also a group on the social networking site Facebook in which interested parties can express their support for the bid.

If you do not wish to continue to receive these notifications about the bid or would rather they go to a talk page on a different project please change Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/Notify_list --Cspurrier 22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Chloë Agnew image
Hi. I post a message for you on Talk:Chloë Agnew. Thanks.--Mitthus 01:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Benjamin, I already read the topics about license process that you sugest. I will need your assistance if Celtic Woman Ltd give this license. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.39.35 (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyrights
(X-Posted) Hey Na, quick note, we can't use copyrighted images like logos in the User space. I went ahead and removed them from your front page. Sorry! -- Huntster  T • @ • C 03:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dang...really? I was thinking that for identification purposes copyrighted images could be used pretty liberally.Nf utvol 03:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) Nope, unfortunately. Pretty much, copyrighted and other non-free images are completely restricted to articles.  Not even supposed to be placed on talk pages.  Kind of odd, but they have their reasons. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 03:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh well. Can you get on AIM or IRC?Nf utvol 03:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) I'm at work right now, probably won't get home till 12:30, then straight to sleep. Long day of classes tomorrow. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Haha, okay, stop with the Latin, it's just annoying ;) "Magister Artium" indeed... -- Huntster  T • @ • C 17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * haha! but it sounds so much smarter! by the way, take a look at 118th Airlift Wing. I stuck up the copyright notification this morning, and cleaned up what I could.  Take a look at the earlier versions though, it's a jewel.Nf utvol 18:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) Problem: Any Air Force, and thus ANG site, is considered to be in the public domain, so thus there is no copyright violation unless that particular web page quotes or otherwise provides copyrighted text.  Probably will want to take down that copyvio notice and clean it up yourself into something more pretty and diverse. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 18:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Even though it's public domain, it is still considered plagiarism, which goes against wiki rules, right?Nf utvol 18:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that I later phoned User:Nfutvol to explain the intricacies of public domain material. I think I presented it well enough!

Wikimaina Atlanta meeting
We will be holding a meeting tonight at 9:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. Please try to be at this meeting as it is one of the last ones before bidding ends and we still have lots that need to be discussed. --Cspurrier 19:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Piper Halliwell
I think that the statement that you restored regarding her ability to freeze witches should be removed. Per the talk pages, I thought that this issue had already been resolved. Missjessica254 21:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

AWB edits
(X-Posted) Hey there, please check your AWB edits. I just caught where was capitalised (diff), thus breaking the ref. Might see about fixing it so this cannot happen. Cheers! -- Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 22:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooh, well spotted! I must have thought it was a template. Thanks for notifying me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs)

= 2007, October =

You, you, YOU PAGE BLANKER!
(X-Posted) Hey, it's not very nice blanking your page, I worked very hard writing some of the stuff there! j/k :) -- Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 01:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Efficiency, my dear Watson, efficiency.nf utvol 02:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) Whatever, I think you just like vandalising your own talk page. :P -- Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 05:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's actually true. No one thinks me important enough to vandalize, therefore I feel the need to do it myself...HELP ME!nf utvol 15:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) Well, I keep telling you that your editing privileges are revoked, but you just won't pay attention... Kinda hard to come to university to enforce that, ya know?  Show some self control! --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 15:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On a side note, you need to make a trip up to Philly. You're the one who always said living in a city was better, anyways.nf utvol 15:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks on my bad!
Good fer you, bad for me! thanks. (kin I blame de missing &lt;/nowiki> it on section editing? Waaaaaaahhhh! boo hoo!) Cheers! // Fra nkB 17:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) Well, it's bad on me too, considering I forgot about the tildes that signed my name in your place. Good thing you caught that or people would be wondering why I got intelligent all of a sudden! ;) --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 23:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK My Bad
(X-Posted) Greetings, and thank you for contributing the Evanescence graphic you recently uploaded to Wikipedia. However, that graphic is their old logo...the one that is currently on the article is their new one (note the extended "A"). Please take a look at the cover of The Open Door and "Good Enough" for actual examples. -- Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 01:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for flipping out i never noticed that extended A. I will try and amend my graphic if my font has that character! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke255 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) No offense, but why do you want to replace the current graphic? It was designed very specifically to meet fair use guidelines, which specifies that non-free graphics and images must be of a minimal size, such as that used for the album covers. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 01:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Most bands have SVG logos eg Metallica, HIM (band), Arch Enemy, Apocalyptica (band). just thought i'd bring the Evanescence one up to speed seeing as they my fav band :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke255 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) Gotcha. However, please don't be annoyed if the image is removed or reverted by someone else, as I believe there may be some kind of caveat to the fair-use rule that copyrighted logos can't be in SVG format (an "even though others use them, doesn't make it right" sort of thing)...I'm simply uncertain on that. Also, when writing on talk pages (either user or article), do remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~) . --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 02:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * KK Im not completely familiar with this code but I'm getting it. If you're right and it is removed then no big deal I still have it for my personal use! Thanks for your patience and help Luke255 02:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) No problem at all, everyone has to learn somewhere :) If you need any future assistance, don't hesitate to leave a message for me. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 02:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the extra info on the Ev logo Luke255 16:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Clutter
The thing is, I'd be all for something like this if it did not require a complete reorganisation of the existing formats. While it would be a good idea to standardise the docs (I may work on that at some future date), I don't really agree with the idea of splitting into conditional subpages and getting into if-then-else statements potentially in both the doc pages and the main templates, when the doc system was created to move any of that stuff out of the template. I'd be interested in see some other editors thoughts on this. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Purpose of the /doc pages method had nothing to do with clutter, but with preprocessing issues, in particular, the size limits imposed on template expansions on pages. I was both central to and outside the preprocessing issue as it was because of my nattering to CBD via emails asking things like: "why the hell are we were hiding usage in talk pages, thereby making template use inobvious (since most utility types could be explained succintly in brief) and thereby require editors to follow several links to find out how to use same." and so forth. CBD conferred with Tim! on the systems aspects when the template expansion ceiling was set at two megs, and the solution was born that fencing things off with noinclude blocks allowed both better protection of key templates (interwikis and category edits could happen in the /doc page), but also the benefit that all pages using a template would not add to the reprocessing que, only changes to the direct template used... and allowed the current semi-standardized template documentation using the /doc method. Subsequently, Ligulem took Tim! and CBDs discussion and boldly put together the first systemization of WP:DOC as a method, and about that time I had to travel for several months. But the genesis was technical more than for editor convenience, which was a side effect of my concerns. Complexity within a /doc page is irrelevant, if its ignored, hence standardisation using parserfunction tricks is not an issue.

The key is, /doc causes far less system loading, as the page is cached only after an edit to it is made, and has NO RIPPLE EFFECT on articles, while DRASTICALLY cutting the numbers of bytes sucked in as part of the preprocessing (The stuff within a 'noinclude' block gets ignored, plus multiple uses of a template [prime example is tl, suck in multiple source code really swelling the problem when used multiple times on some page... this was a principle effect, BTW).

Subsequently, the /doc technique was exported to our sister projects via the WP:TSP project, which I founded to both improve and standardize template documentation, and share templates technology. Some sisters liked that, some didn't care, and some fought it, which dissenting factors (energy, time), soured me on all our wikis all this past summer... at the expense of standardizing the template documentation never really got off the ground. It's not a sexy thing to work on. God knows I spent many a boring night doing such upgrades on simple tools templates and such that are and were exported elsewhere. If we complicate a small set of /doc pages for multiple displaying (or category declaring, etc. lof the citations templates, at least it will be for use here 'In-house' without all the side politics issues. The techniques really don't clutter things up much anyway. My tendency to comment things a lot probably does that MORE, but leaves a clear picture of WHY [I hope!] <g>), we did a lot of that sort of editing in satisfying the various sister projects declarations of categories in WP:TSP. The issues across sister projects are political (Some projects simply do not like anything from wikipedia, period.)

Standardization is however still desirable, but the complexity of logic used inside a /doc page or (other named such page (e.g. common usage pages like indent family usage) has no deleterious issues to that by my definitions and understanding. Per me, standardization requires a clear presentation of parameter behavior and options for the template tyro (Novice editors, or technically nonadept, including those who like staying as ignorant as possible!) plus a 'descent presentation'. Selectively disabling multiple examples in a given citation template can be replaced in an if-then-else to a link for the specific templates page... showing the greater number of examples. In short, I think it will be far far less messy than you seem to think.

How's this idea -- copy the most five or ten commonly used citations templates /doc pages to a /doc2 page. Morph those, and test the concept. That will give concrete discussable results with a clear picture of how many work arounds are needed, and an idea of exactly how much clutter is involved. At worst, failure will require a few compensentory db-authors, but even then, we will be ahead in knowledge gained. I have some time today, if your willing to take on a helper. ttfn // Fra nkB 18:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) Hi FrankB. I'm not quite sure where the issue of clutter was brought up...the last line about moving stuff out of the templates and into doc pages was meant to reference the problem with preprocessing issues before.  Sorry that you spent such time explaining the problem.  I'm definitely familiar with the situation—I'm quietly campaigning for Convert to be broken into sub-templates due to its extreme bloat—and the value of the doc pages.  Interesting nonetheless to hear some of the history behind the issue.


 * My idea of standardisation of the citation docs may be a simpler thought than what you have in mind, in that I only am worried about having each doc use the same section standards ("Usage" with the copyable blank templates, "Description of fields" with details of each field usage, "Verbiage" with examples of usage, plus a "Additional notes" section to cover all other details within subsections (COinS, Metadata, Notes, Cite styles, etc etc). The contents of these sections can be left up to the needs of the individual template.  I'll be honest, I'm still not quite seeing what value the if-then-else statements would be...I'm a visual thinker, so words don't always get through my brain.  Creating an userspace example may be the best thing.


 * One simple idea that would at least solve the categorisation problem would be to add them to a /cat subpage, rather than the doc page, then transcluding that page into the template exactly the same as the docs are now. If the standardisation of doc layouts were to be effected, the TOC thing won't be such a problem.  I'm just very cautious when it comes to the mal-cluttering and misuse of categories. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In a way, your 'standardisation' concept is farther along... as within a specific template grouping, there are cliques with their own 'values' such as your list of sections. My interest would be in checking off systematic coverage of certain introductory points that aid someone new to such to understand what they're seeing, and what they're options are. Hence a focus on clarity of exposition and explaination, not on the format of that, so more on content than on form. (e.g. What the heck is COinS or Metadata, in the context where it's used--so on basis of understanding building as well as specifics relavant to a given case.) Nonetheless, I think we've some common ground. Give me a list of the five or six most commonly used cites templates (on my talk) to cover in your experience, and I'll dummy something 'visual and concrete' up for you and I to discuss further. I'm not heavily engaged today (just had a nap, as a matter of fact--we've a holiday here in Boston. Ahhhh, the good life! <G>) on anything else (yet!) The four or five I've used extensively are "cite book", "cite web", "cite video", "cite visual", and "cite news", so I'll start with those and add in any you suggest. Look for /doc2 pageS of those names and you can follow along in Tt1, using the talk as the hypothetical wikipage showing the output aggregated. We should be better able to evaluate the category issue there as well, which I see as a minor annoyance given the precedent of help pages like Redirects and the several sub-page aids like that on various topics. Sometimes you just let them pile up and ignore them! Thanks // Fra nkB 23:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ouch!
re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_book%2Fdoc&diff=156818112&oldid=163251722 Cheers--any reactions? // Fra nkB 04:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) with expansion of the standard doc page pattern boilerplate, the header templates add to the page top. There is most likely at least one other logic bug in what I've prepped as a replacement Cite book/doc page in /doc2 [I just saw a minor one in the diff], but this is the kind of thing.
 * 2) I should have started with a shorter/easier one.
 * 3) Found it's really easier to use another subpage to exclude what's not wanted when that content is a wikitable, as this page had several of. The pipe operator/delimiter is much to much overused when combining wikitables and parser functions if you've never had the hair-pulling-out displeasures! Don't know why I forgot that though--must be an age thing--we had to use hard coded XHTML to interleave tables with logic in the fanciest WP:TSP templates.
 * 4) I see you peed/peeked in and made a fiddle. As an old programmer, if a system coherces case, I let it worry about same. Those of us with C/C++ coding backgrounds are quite used to all lower case, which spills over into all sorts of other eccentricities in computing. What we need to do now, is subst doc2 for the doc page, and see if anything shows up missing.
 * 5) unfortunately, I had to code some stuff as testing for /doc2, so that transfer should involve an intermediary stop in a text editor with a search and replace of that string as /doc before pasting it in as the doc page.
 * 6) I'd hold up on that for now... between the histories and the diff lines I stubbed in during my last save in Ttl, there's enough to get a feel for the technique.
 * 7) There's a stray } character that needs found manifesting from somewhere as well.
 * 8) Testing for the 'page to be' name seems the best way to implement the logic to bypass stuff, as the 'else' case is what is one the page as is now. That minimizes pipe side-effects all by itself.
 * 9) No if block is common stuff
 * 10) Testing for the PAGENAME, FULLPAGENAME, etc. then used to enable the categories, interwikis and such wanted on the template page, but not on the compendium.
 * 11) I may come back, but it's already after midnight, so I think I'm wrapping it up for the night.

Harumph
Just reading this over after closing, I realized the easiest thing is to extract the stuff to display in the compendium into a separate subpage like my Cite book/docA [which would be backwards to what I'm saying here and now]... that leaves all the categories and larger mass of text unmolested, but puts the compendium stuff where it can be found.

Note the test within it to only display the edit link from within the /doc2 page... an modified doc page pattern by conditional test, if you like. Hence, it's easily accessible when maintaining the doc page, and [the edit link] is otherwise invisible... when used in a compendium or the template page proper. This would limit the page changes to the extraction, replaced by the call of the new subpage inside a short succinct logic block, plus, adding such exclusionary altered doc page pattern logic in the new subpage plus the pasted in text for both displaying pages. What I just had to do in my /doc2 really just uses too many if statements for ease of both implementation and future maintenance. In short it was a pain comparatively. Dah-Ohhhh! G'night! // Fra nkB 04:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

re: ''Very sorry for not commenting or working on this tonight, I'm exhausted to the point of delirium. Let me get some sleep and approach this with fresh eyes tomorrow. -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)''


 * Don't be silly! Real Life has priority over any wiki--which includes things like being a Dad or Mom, eating, making a buck, paying a bill, and Sleep (once in a while) <g>-- and I was going to bed too. I've real life obligations too, and you can see from the pace of my replies on Wikikpedia talk:Citation templates the time I've for wiki activities varies day to day, week to week. Then again, there is no reason to rush this. Better to get it up carefully, than put oneself into an emergency rush mode--the project has done without it so far. In the meantime, I'm going to do one (possibly two) other page adaptions (begining) now in line with my last comments on speedy and senisble development.


 * The only real 'tough part' of the technique is the two headers, so I'll use Tt2 to create a temporary boilerplate page extracting both from the cite book/doc2 and cite book/docA. A little judicious search and replace in a text editor, and Voila, working page tops.


 * Have a great day. // Fra nkB 13:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW
re: Convert (Just followed that reference answering Eziki)

FYI -- The issue with this is not breaking it up... the works are already in place in. See the section on my talk immediately above where we've been conversing!

BUT! Looks like a sound TFD nom to tag with depreciated in favor of Eziki's family of templates would be in order.

My personal philosophy is if a tool is useful, and some find it more convenient (Since they're used to its syntax, ignorant of alternatives, etc.), then it's analogous to your local garage, where two co-workers have different tools in their respective tool boxes.

Their choice... their money spent. In this case, money equates to a volunteers time, plus the time to replace such. Even a BOT replacement has a cost in man hours. Placing an depreciate tag on it in favor of such templates using template list links would gradually do the job and tell people what else is available when someone checks.

From what I can see by the tables, Converts arguments are far more cryptic than say (15.4 km)or , AND despite Eziki's comment this morning, they are coded pretty small.

'Cite press release' and subpages will be and should be the model we use per me. I need to do some real life stuff, so won't be active until evening once I finish that up. The other two have "issues" and will be more complicated... this method uses the /docA for the compendium resource, and affects the current /doc page least... leaving only that which is wanted to be displayed on all three pages (the template proper, the primary /doc page, and the compendium) in the /docA and therefore using the least number of if-then-else tests, et. al. Far simpler, as my experience "sense" suggested back on Wikipedia talk!)
 * (update... re: Tt1 work...


 * Now we need a good name for the compendium page we want to build. Any good ideas? I'd prefer to avoid a subpage name. Citation templates is the overdense page that's similar, sans parameter definitions. Citation templates II, WP:CITET2 and WP:CIT2???

Cheers // Fra nkB 16:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Shepard Smith (response)
(X-Posted) I noticed you recently performed a "cleanup" on the Shepard Smith article. I've partially reverted this edit because you delinked wikidates against WP:DATE (...kept other edits made). Any reason why you did this? -- Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 23:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the second sentence of the last bullet at WP:DATE: "Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic."


 * Having a link to the particular month and/or year in this article does very little to "deepen readers' understanding of [this] topic." I find it unlikly that someone reading the article would see a link to November 17 (for instance) and click on it to find out more about that date; none of the events listed for that day would have any bearing on Smith. Also notice that some dates in the article are linked and others aren't; the choice of linked dates seems random at best. I hope that sums up my decision. -NatureBoyMD 03:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) Your example is targeted specifically at the preceding sentence, "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia." AKA, instances such as "November 2007" should never be linked in the form of "November 2007" or "November" or "2007", because linking to those does not help in the autoformatting.  Full dates, such as "November 25, 2007", or even just "November 25", should always be linked so that user preferences are taken into account, as is exemplified in the preceding bullet on that MOS page. By the way, hello from a fellow Tennessean. :) --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 07:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, no, no... My main argument is this sentence: Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. I don't think it can be made any clearer than that. By the way, I also went to MTSU. -NatureBoyMD 16:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) If I understand what you are saying, you want to apply that sentence to the entire section on wikidating. It isn't intended for that; rather, just to the preceding sentence on linking lone terms like months and years.  Your edit to the article removed three wikidate codes, namely "November 17, 2000", "July 20, 2001", and "August 29" . These links are, as I've mentioned before, necessary to allow for user preference in date format.  I just don't know how to explain it further. :/ --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Record charts
(X-Posted) Please do not run AWB over this page again, or other articles in its present configuration. It is improperly formatting line breaks by removing the backslash, which is improper HTML, and on this page in particular, it formatted one of the superscripted numbers as an actual superscript character, which is intentionally avoided. Are you using the default settings, or is this something you have set up yourself? If default, let me know and I'll have to speak with the creator of the program. -- Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 17:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

--> because they both do the same thing. --  ¤ The-G-Unit-?oss ¤   20:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sorry for doing that. It's the second time I think, it's just that the WP:CHARTS page is on my watchlist. AWB is default set to change the superscript. It was me who setup the

is more correct for modern HTML (actually XHTML) than , so please don't change those in the future. Cheers -- Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (X-Posted) Cool, thanks for replying. They do the same thing, but the


 * Ok, sorry for the incovinience. --  ¤ The-G-Unit-?oss ¤   21:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, So it's basically to make WikiPedia compatible with programs/people who try to read the whole sites code?. I'll be sure to change my AWB settings to change all variables of, <br\> etc to  . --   ¤ The-G-Unit-?oss ¤   15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

''It was later noted by User:PEJL that this should not be done either, for a variety of reasons. For example: it results in unnecessary edits, Wikipedia automatically converts the code anyway, and it may inadvertantly convert material that was intended for a specific display.''

Uluru
(X-Posted) Greetings and welcome to Wikipedia as a registered editor! Your first edits, to the article Uluru, were really quite good (especially your use of the citation; for that I applaud you), but I would like to take this moment to point out a couple of things.

First, because of the wide range of English dialects used throughout the world, editors are asked to use local English for articles taking place in certain places. For example, the Uluru article should use Australian English rather than American English. For this reason I reverted your spelling change of "color" to "colour".

Second, editors must take care to make edits in a non-POV manner, neither favouring one side or another. If I may guess, it seems you favour the Creationist theory, which I respect, but please remember to not edit in such a way that might push this viewpoint. I have reworded the paragraph you added to the article to maintain a non-POV aspect, but still present the arguments raised in the journal article you cited. Remember, whether we personally believe one thing or another, both evolution and creationism are still theories, neither fully proven nor disproven except in our own minds and hearts. If you would, please take a look at my edit here and see what I mean. If you have any questions, any at all regarding editing on Wikipedia, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'll assist in any way I can. Again, I officially welcome you to the website :) -- Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 07:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your revision of my edit at Uluru. It made it much more NPOV than my feeble attempt. :) Sorry about the local English thing, nasty American habit on my part. I'll try to remember your advice in the future! Goo2you 03:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania 2008/Conference of the Americas
Hello, As you may or may not know, Alexandria, Egypt was selected to host Wikimania 2008. So as to prevent the hard work of the many Wikimedians involved in the Atlanta bid from going to waste, we have decided to host a conference for the Americas. This is in no way an attempt to compete with Wikimania or make a statement against Wikimania.

As one of the people signed up to help with the Wikimania Atlanta bid, we hope you will join us at the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas. We will be having a meeting tonight in IRC tonight (Oct 15) at 9:30PM in #cota-atlanta on irc.freenode.org to discuss the conference. For more information about IRC see.

For more information about the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas see http://www.cota-atlanta.org and our wiki http://www.cota-atlanta.org/wiki.

If you do not wish to receive further notices about the COTA please remove your name from our notify list. --Cspurrier 20:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Serious Advice
The Evanescence Discography is highly unsourced and does not follow Wiki rules as it has way too many tables. The last portion of the article is highly long and odd. I would like to advice that the discography follows Gwen Stefani discography. Thank You! Indianescence 17:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) Yes, that article has always been the 'step-child', if you will, of the Evanescence series, intended mostly to draw away the garbage that folks once added to the articles themselves (a task, I must add, that it has done admirably, saving the actual article editors quite some grief). I don't know how much can be done to rectify the problem, but thanks for the link, I'll check it out. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 18:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just informing you. Discographys are very easy to make FA. If done properly it is very easy to bring to FA. It requires minimal work. So evanescence has a chance to get a FA. Indianescence 12:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Las of Karma
(X-Posted) Hey Fuzzypeg, I like the edits for the most part, though I still don't really think they need sections unto themselves, especially given how short they are...such are generally discouraged (at least that is what I've found in my time here). Perhaps these could all be placed in expanded prose under a general "Beliefs" second-tier header? However, I don't quite understand this sentence: "Some Wiccans believe in the las of karma as well as the Threefold Law." What is 'las'? In a brief search, I can only find that 'las' is another term for karma. Any help here? Also, unless a citation can be found, that particular section/sentence should probably be deleted after a week or two. -- Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 10:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't know about the LAS of KARMA and yet you consider yourself competent to edit an article on Wicca? How dare you!!! No, seriously, I intended to write the "law" of Karma. I'm really happy for those sections to be removed, and I just ran out of time to do it gracefully (and to proof-read my edits, it seems). I trimmed out all the repeated info and stuff that was clearly irrelevant, and I hoped someone else would deal with what was remaining, by either removing it or working it in better with the rest of the article. Cheers, Fuzzypeg ? 21:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) No, I don't think I'm competent to be editing the article, but I try anyway ;) In all seriousness, I think people don't do much to the article except for vandal fighting because you and Kim seem to be by far the most knowledgeable and competent writers we have on the subject!  And that's as strong an endorsement of skill I can think of. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Aw shucks. (blushing) Thanks. I don't really feel like an authority, though; there are a lot of knowledgeable people who don't bother trying to explain things to the outer world, and I'm merely one who does. Fuzzypeg ? 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Miroku and Sango Image Rationales- Thank You
Thank you so much for putting a Rationale for both images. I could not understand how to go about putting a rationale on, either because 'm being stupid or I have had so much homework here lately my thinking ability is limited lol. Anyways, thanks so much. Kagome_85 20:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (X-Posted) Lol, it is no problem. I had originally noticed the images because when the license template was included, it had been subst'd, which expanded the template and placed the pics into several odd categories.  Wasn't all that hard to use my handy dandy (just pick the ones appropriate to the image) cut'n'paste rationale list and fill them out.  And yes, I understand the problem with limited brain power 'round this time of year! Cheers! --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 23:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)