User talk:Remember the dot/Archive/9

Vandalism reversion
Hi there. Can you please explain why you reverted well intentioned edits, that were in fact reverting the original vandalism. -- Flewis (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My mistake. Both the IP addresses in question start with "76." and end with a 4. I thought they were the same - I was trying to restore this revision. Sorry for the trouble; I will try to be more careful in the future. —Remember the dot (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC bot
I have picked your name at random from the list of Administrators and hope you can help by finding if I made mistakes when posting my RfC here. Much more than an hour has passed since I posted it, but it still does not appear in the list of such requests. This comment has made me wonder whether the bot is not working. Thanks for the interest that I trust you will kindly take in the problem. Soidi (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Politicalposter
Way back in March, you deleted Template:Politicalposter, with no explanation or reason given. While I understand (from elsewhere) that it is depreciated in favor of Template:Non-free poster (which is fine, and sensible), hiding multiple years of history (and peoples edits) rather than simply turning the template into a soft redirect (which preserves the history, makes it clear whats going on, but prevents the template from being included without looking wrong) was unjustified and careless. Yes, we're all very, very busy these days, but please take more care with the delete button. Pardon the tone -- I'm an old fogey who is wandering on the scene, and trying to fix a few of the (perfectly understandable) errors and mistakes we all make in a project this size. Good luck, and thanks for continuing to work on the project. (BTW, I restored a few other ones you deleted as well. I haven't had time to look through all of them -- please consider restoring (to a soft redirect) those which had longstanding history.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

ISO date template
didn't realize it made the date disappear for the Logan temple - I'll work on debugging it - you mention that a specific template for the conversion may be needed - I was hoping something more generic could be used. I'm not sure I understand why a generic conversion wouldn't work Trödel  21:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The date formatting for Template:LDS Temple compare follows a very specific algorithm:


 * If the date matches the format "1 February 2000", it is formatted as "2000-02-01".
 * If the date matches the format "February 2000", it is formatted as "2000-02".
 * If the date does not match either of these formats, it is displayed as entered. This means that if an editor makes a mistake when entering the date, at worst it will just show up in the wrong format instead of not showing up at all.


 * A generic date-formatting template is probably not going to produce exactly the same results. For one thing, I don't think that "2000-02" is considered "ISO format", strictly speaking. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I've been reading lately some people don't feel that 2001-02-01 is strictly ISO format :) - anyway - It is a good sortable format. Did you get my email re bug 4582 -- Trödel 21:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe I have it working as demonstrated at User:Trödel/Sandbox1 can you check on it and see if there are any changes needed -- Trödel 23:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw your e-mail - To me, we are far from any technical intervention as far as date formatting, and any date formatting solution will have to have at minimum a way to opt-out. The lead developer himself is opposed to date autoformatting of any kind:.


 * Template:ISO date looks better now, but if a user enters a date in an unrecognized format then ISO date requires a parameter appears. Previously, the code fell back on displaying dates in unrecognzied formats as-is, rather than blowing up. The template at least needs a way to toggle between Draconian error handling that is appropriate for a general template and less strict error handling that is appropriate for Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is another reason why a more specific template is probably more appropriate for what we want to do here. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See User:Trödel/Sandbox2 - It should only return the error if no parameter is passed, and pass through whatever is passed in unchanged if it doesn't recognize the date. -- Trödel 00:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. Looks good! —Remember the dot (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I made a structural change - to handle the exceptions month year, year only and then let the #time handle all the rest - what do you think. -- Trödel 03:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * = 1863-11-12. That's really not acceptable...I'm confused as to what these lines are supposed to do:

 else if formatted YYYY -->{{ #ifeq: {{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}} |{{ #time: Y-m | {{{1| 15 January 2001 }}} | local }}|
 * Why are you using  and  ? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, what weird stuff was happening? How do you know that it was caused by Template:Sort and not, say, server lag? —Remember the dot (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mesopotamian Gods Image
You wrote that the image does not have details on its copywrite status. I created the image myself and in the Comment Column I stated that people were free to use it in the Wiki Commons. What more should I do, can you help me? Regards John D. Croft (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:BusinessWeek cover 14 Aug 2006.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BusinessWeek cover 14 Aug 2006.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 13:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Alt tags
Please read our article on alt attributes. One reason why they exist is to inform people using screen readers, despite your edit summary. In fact, the use of meaningful alt text is necessary to comply with accessibility standards. I reverted your edit on the POTD, but I suggest you self-revert elsewhere. Regards,  howcheng  {chat} 23:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Guadalajara México Temple
Hi, I've got the images for this article sitting in OTRS. Did you want to upload them or shall I? If you'd rather do it, the OTRS ticket is 2008111710014605. Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 00:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I've uploaded and tagged them. I just noticed Commons:Template:OTRS pending, so in the future I'll use this template and upload photos as soon as I know that the confirmation of permission has been sent. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

wikistats misread (just for your information)
In an edit summary for MoS:date autoformatting you wrote:"(As of two years ago, of the millions of people that read Wikipedia, there were 151,934 user accounts total, 7,940 accounts with >5 edits, and 4,330 accounts with >100 edits, see http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm)" I actually went to your link, and it says that 7,940 is the number of New Accounts (column B), while over a quarter of the accounts (43,001) had over 5 edits (column C). This seems prima facie more plausible. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right - I misread the columns, thanks for pointing out my error. Still, my point stands: comparatively few of our readers have and use accounts. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I fully agree with your basic point, and just made a similar one at Wikipedia Talk:Portal. Have a good weekend. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK City Temple
The permission for this is in OTRS with ticket #2008112410001785 and ready for your upload.  howcheng  {chat} 21:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The photo had in fact already been uploaded as Image:Oklahoma City temple by Aaron H. Larsen.jpeg and tagged with . If you want to keep posting the ticket numbers to my talk page that's fine, otherwise the photos should be fairly easy for you to find. Thanks again! —Remember the dot (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

requests?
Your CrusadeBot is turned off. Will it come back? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not likely. I think another bot was made to replace it. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

ITN death proposal
Hello,

I'm wondering what to do about Main Page/ITN death proposal. This really does not belong in the article space; would you like to move it to your userspace instead, or should we move it to the Wikipedia space? —Remember the dot (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I'd forgotten about that page. Thanks for reminding me!  I've moved it to my userspace and deleted the redirect.  —David Levy 02:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks! —Remember the dot (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Gadget question
What does MediaWiki:Gadget-DejaVu Sans.css do? I mean, I've read the description, but in looking at the CSS code, I don't see it doing much of anything (chiefly because there's no actual URL). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking back, this didn't really need to be a gadget. It uses font embedding with a data URI to embed a font into the page. I made this more to demonstrate the technology than anything else. Something like this would be really useful for things like the Burmese Wikipedia because to my knowledge no operating system includes a Burmese font out of the box and there seems to be a fair amount of variation in the Burmese fonts that are available. Embedding a single Burmese font sitewide could get everyone on the same page as far as fonts and help them move beyond font issues and concentrate on writing the encyclopedia.


 * Anyway, TTF font embedding is currently only supported in Safari, but the beta version of Firefox 3.1 and the alpha version of Opera 10 both support it, so by this time next year it would not be unreasonable to expect that 20% of web users could enjoy embedded fonts. Merry Christmas! —Remember the dot (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)