User talk:Jarry1250/Archive 7

re: User:Ordew
Hi there, is User:Ordew related to you? If so could you ask him to change those userboxes? or at least remove the administrator one? Because it adds him to Category:Administrators and it's probably not a good idea to be in that category if one is not an admin. Regards, &oelig; &trade; 03:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Adopt me?
Hi, I'm looking to get a bit more of an insight into creating articles, and using Wikipedia in general. Looked through the adopters list and you looked like the best bet for me. Are you interested in adopting me? Thanks Fletch79 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for getting back to me. I've never done anonymous editing - this is my first attempt at actually changing anything on Wikipedia, although I have used it quite a bit for research.  The two chess sandboxes are articles that I think are important but need quite a re-write - but I'm not confident enough to do it in situ.


 * The CMI sandbox is all my own work - thanks for your formatting tips which I will try to implement.  From reading through the various bits and pieces I think it probably needs some links outside of actuaries.org to show it's notable - any thoughts?


 * Not sure how much I'll be on here during the week, but may be on quite a bit at the weekend. Thanks again Fletch79 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jarry, wonder if you could help me out on a few things?
 * Firstly, please could you have a quick look at my new sandbox on Mijo Udovcic and see what you think (really looking for comments on the formatting and referencing rather than anything else).
 * Secondly, some of the information came from foreign-language versions of Wikipedia (Germany / Poland in particular) - what is the etiquette on crediting them?
 * Thirdly, I thought I had lost some work when actually it was a typo, so I've also managed to create a user page called "Mido Udovcic" which is a copy, and which I'll never use. Can I delete this completely, or is there some process I need to go through?  Thanks Fletch79 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response - just what I needed. I've cleaned it up a bit based on your comments. I think the reference in the diagram is OK, as I've copied the syntax direct from one of the few featured articles on chess.

I'm still a bit confused about referencing eg German Wikipedia. I have used a bit of their content and a few of their links, but expanded the article somewhat, and re-written, whereas the templates seem to be for direct translation. I'm happy to reference them (as they provided a good starting point) but it's not just a translation. Looking at it, it just says it takes some information so that's fine.

Of the two other links you talk about, one is my fault (39th in the world) and the other is not referenced (Zagreb judge) so I deleted it.

Presumably if I want to I can now just go ahead and publish it? Fletch79 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

First article published! Thanks for your help! Having thought about things, I have a few more generic Wikipedia questions - please feel free either not to answer or to take your time over answering. My questions are:


 * What sort of things do you personally get most pleasure / pride out of by being part of the community here?
 * Having seen (briefly) the way I write and work, are there any areas that you'd suggest I look into in particular?
 * What things really annoy you about Wikipedia / which parts do you think could work better?

Sorry to ask more questions but I feel that you might have some good answers for me. Thanks again Fletch79 (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply - your RfA was interesting, and the support impressive! I enjoyed creating the article(s) and think it's helped me gain confidence in what I'm doing.  It has been a bit of solitary pursuit though, and obviously there's a lot more to this project than that - I'd like to get involved where I can.  I'd already joined the Chess WikiProject so will see how that goes, and I may try tidying a few other articles up a bit.  I think my way is to get into things a bit at a time... Fletch79 (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Weird update
I reverted this. It has happened before, but I didn't see it mentioned in your last two archives. Regards Hekerui (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please check the page, the bot doesn't stop. Hekerui (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Signs
Thank you for the encouragement! I love helping out with wikipedia and heraldry is a personal interest of mine. I can't say that I am particularly knowledgeable on the subject however I am more than willing to do the research and become more informed. If you have any other sources that you recommend for study I would be happy to go and check them out. I love learning new things, especialy new things about subjects dear to my heart.--Kthapelo (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The default thumb size saga
Jarry, I guess you've read the recent reasons given by "Ariel", via Roan Kattouw at Bugzilla, for postponing the community-driven change to the default pixel-width size:

I talked to Ariel, and he's not convinced that the scalers can handle it: all images used on enwiki would have to be rethumbnailed within a relatively short time. Before we do this, Ariel wants to have a few spare machines that can be thrown into the scaler pool at short notice, and wants to be around to do that. Currently, neither is the case.

Summary: not happening right now, we need more servers first.

I'm unsure why this issue was not taken into consideration by CTO Brion Vibber when he said, at the same Bugzilla page: "I think I'd be fine with sticking 220 in as the sitewide default." Or why it has taken about a month after the Bugzilla request was launched to reveal this critical technical fact.

I'm also disappointed that my three requests for technical advice on the talk page of staff developer Tim Starling before and during the RfC were not answered. The development team doesn't seem to be responsive to editorial communications, and nor does it seem to be internally coordinated. Thumbnail size has been shown to be a significant issue for en.WP. While I concede that I don't know what pressures the paid and volunteer developers at Wikimedia find themselves at the moment, it would nevertheless have been proper to have put the community in the picture at an earlier stage of the discussion.

User:HWV258, an IT professional, has advised me that to raise the default size even by a single pixel—180 to 181px—would place the same strain on the "scalers" (whatever they are). So my initial thought that the increase could be phased in with a succession of smaller increases is irrelevant.

OK, so they need (1) "a few spare machines" as back-up before typing in the new site-wide default, and (2) the presence of Ariel. My question, Jarry, is how I can keep tabs in advance on the purchase and installation of new machines, so I can pop up again at the right time to remind the developers that the time has come. Tony  (talk)  04:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Recurrence of random walks
That means the probability of eventually coming within a distance &epsilon; of each other, no matter how small &epsilon; is, is 1, if they're in a plane. In 3-space, the probability is less than 1. (If it's a discrete random walk on integer points in 3 dimensions, with the usual assumptions (independence of steps, uniform distribution), then I think the probability they eventually meet again is something like 0.3.) I seem to recall that George Polya figured this out in about 1910 or something like that. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Random walks in 2 dimensions are recurrent.
 * Random walks in more than 2 dimensions are transient.

Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot
Hi Jarry. I noticed that the recently approved 500-edit trial is complete. Do you know what the next step is for the bot? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and comment if appropriate. –xenotalk 18:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Percy Shaw Jeffrey and the degree of Master of Arts
You appear to be largely responsible for a very good article on Percy Shaw Jeffrey. I am a little concerned about the mention of his having been awarded an honorary MA. I think it much more likely that the degree conferred on him in 1890 was simply the degree of Master of Arts. As you will know, the degree of Master of Arts is conferred on Bachelors of Arts of twenty-one terms standing from matriculation. I don't think that this has changed since the late nineteenth century. In Jeffrey's case the twenty-first term from his matriculation (in Hilary Term 1884) would indeed be Michaelmas Term 1890. This raises the question of just what is meant by, 'he was inducted into the University of Oxford'. I think that, in Jeffrey's day as in our own, the correct term would be 'matriculated', unless, of course, he underwent some other kind of induction, which I think is unlikely.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Castile-La Mancha
Thanks. Some of that ("dexter", "sinister", capitalizing "Or") was quite useful; in a couple of places, however, I've had to edit because what you wrote simply does not match the text of the statute. For example, my "gules or red" is because the statute says, verbatim, "gules o rojo"; similarly for "azur or blue", "on the first quarter", etc. I've put your "dexter" in brackets; similarly on "sinister", where I also have fixed a redlink.

Again, thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 22:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, "quarter" disturbed me too. I'll change that (I'll indicate that it's literal, and then use something more colloquial). Yes, I was quoting a statute. - Jmabel | Talk 18:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Ledbury


The article The Ledbury has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * It has one star from Michelin, and how is that encyclopedic?

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. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 208.59.120.194 (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk  at 03:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on signatures
Hello Jarry1250, I have noticed your signature in the past and others and I was thinking to opening an RFC about what exactly is acceptable and not acceptable. Please don't take this as anything but an inquiry. I support your signatures, and how you have used your signatures, I simply want to know the boundaries of what is and what is not acceptable for myself. Any thoughts? Ikip 10:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Practise" or "Practice"
Since you use British English, is it more common in England to see this word spelled practise? In the United States it is normally spelled practice and if we see it the other way it is considered a misspelling.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are fast! Looking at this usage it appears to be a verb. However, supposedly an American research librarian with a Phd from Princeton University translated this from 1500 year old Latin. Do you have an explanation for the "mistake" that an American librarian should not have made?--Doug Coldwell talk 12:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See my reply on my talk page to keep everything in one spot. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another reply on my talk page. Also could you answer on the Language Desk if this generally applies to Nero? Where in England are you? It is 8:30 in the morning and I just got up. What time is it in England?--Doug Coldwell talk 13:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ping.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ping.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ping.--Doug Coldwell talk 16:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ping.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Bugle
Hi. Thanks for moving Bugle (instrument) to Bugle, but Talk:Bugle (instrument) was left behind. Can that be moved to Talk:Bugle? Thanks. Station1 (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Poems in Two Volumes
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Poems in Two Volumes, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/jgarret/wva/toc-p2v.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot
Just so you know, CorenSearchBot's notification does not automatically nominate an article for speedy deletion. Thus you don't need to use the hangon tag, as that does nominate the article for speedy deletion if it's not on there already. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikibot.php5
Good day, I'm trying to use your Wikibot.php5 framwork in order to create a bot for Wikinews. I have a problem and I don't understand it when I try to create a new page.

When I use this variable $text = " {| border=\"1px\" width=\"75%\" class=\"wikitable\" align=\"center\" cellspacing=\"3px\" !colspan=12| Résultats du ". $date. " |- style=\"border:1px solid #889999; background-color:#F0F0F0;\" ! Équipe gagnante!! Équipe perdante!! Pointage final |}"; Eveyrything works and the page is created.

If I use $text = "4 January 2010 Le ". $date. ", " . $nbParties. " parties se déroulaient dans la Ligue de hockey junior majeur du Québec (LHJMQ)."; everything works too.

However, if I put both together, $text = "4 January 2010 Le ". $date. ", " . $nbParties. " parties se déroulaient dans la Ligue de hockey junior majeur du Québec (LHJMQ). {| border=\"1px\" width=\"75%\" class=\"wikitable\" align=\"center\" cellspacing=\"3px\" !colspan=12| Résultats du ". $date. " |- style=\"border:1px solid #889999; background-color:#F0F0F0;\" ! Équipe gagnante!! Équipe perdante!! Pointage final |}"; I got an error.

The error is Notice: unserialize [function.unserialize]: Error at offset 0 of 59937 bytes in C:\wamp\www\wikibot\Wikibot.php5 on line 226

Notice: Undefined variable: result in C:\wamp\www\wikibot\Wikibot.php5 on line 167 Error - ^^^ Error with put_page called from edit_page.

Can you help me ? Amqui (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had to add 'Expect :' . Amqui (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for a tool
Can you please implement a tool similar to http://toolserver.org/~jarry/livingparam/index.php?plaintext=true ? I would like to know which pages in the category (or its subcategories) 'Dead people' have talk pages are not in category Biography articles without living parameter). -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)



Hello Jarry1250, Magioladitis has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! For creating some great tools for me. Once again, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. Magioladitis (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[[File:Chippingongar-21june1947.jpg]]
With regards to this image, what is so unclear about it's copyright status? It's quite clearly shown on it's image page as follows:

Also the fact is that it's been on Wikipedia for over three years. What is your problem with it? Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hollytrees Museum
Hello! Your submission of Hollytrees Museum at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer  Waters  22:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

wikipolice
Thank you very much, it wasn't what I expected it to be though. Never mind. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
for trying to fix the archiving on my page. I'm not sure if it worked, since I'm really bad at formatting on stuff like that, but thanks anyway! I was curious though, how did you run across my page? PrincessofLlyr (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
PrincessofLlyr (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Holbeck Ghyll


The article Holbeck Ghyll has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Pontificalibus  (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

LivingBOT/new GA list
Not sure if this is preventable, but in this edit the bot listed an article as new when actually the title was just (slightly) altered. (The article was promoted back in 2008.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Malvern
Alright - there's no need to  lay it on  so  thick, especially  in  edit summaries; we can all  make minor mistakes. - I'm  just as experienced an editor  as you  are. Thanks anyway.--Kudpung (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Oldbuckenham-30march1946.jpg
What is wrong with it? The image has been on Wikipedia for years Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * your bot is flagging multiple images uploaded in 2006.  What is wrong with them? Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so.... [from "Copyright for Archivists" by Tim Padfield] http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/crown-a.pdf Photograph was taken in the late 1940s, therefore the Copyright expires 50 years after creation

In addition, I've digitally enhanced and clarified the original images - my own work.

Regards Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Works for me - I'll go though them all and add the tag as required.  Take care :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wendell H. Ford
Thanks for your comments on my FA nom of Wendell H. Ford. I definitely understand wanting to abide by copyright law; I try to raise awareness of that issue myself in both my professional and personal life. Nonetheless, I have serious doubts that I will be able to provide conclusive proof of the "freeness" of the images in question. If they cannot be satisfactorily proven to be free, they really ought to be deleted from Commons so others are not using them as free on or off of Wikimedia-related projects. Would you consider FFD'ing them and striking your oppose? I presently have 3 supports (counting myself as the nominator) and an admin will likely want to close the nom soon. I still need another support, but I'd hate to have to restart the nomination over this relatively small issue. If you prefer not to strike your oppose and go to FFD, then let me know ASAP and I will just remove the images. Thanks. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. I hope something will occur to bring some closure to the larger issue of congressional portraits and the Biographical Directory. As I primarily edit politician articles, I suspect this will not be the last time I encounter it. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 19:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Bot
Hello to you,

Something got wrong in your bot source code,

Can you fix it? Thank you and good week. Sabbath Shalom, אור גוטמן (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Satire: recentism tag.
This is one of those sections that accumulates "current" controversy - which has been added to by successive editors. While some less than notable examples may have crept in, there is surely at least enough historical material to indicate that opposition to satire is not new.

Does the "recentism" of this section lie, in your view, in excess of recent material, or deficiency of historical examples? Just so we can look at possible improvements from the "right" end.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:PUF (again, sorry...)
-  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)