User talk:Rjwilmsi/Archives/2008/July

ISO dates
Hi Rjwilmsi, is this ISO 8601 now the compelling format for dates on :en? I think for most people outside north America, this format is ambiguous, because we are never sure what is month and what is day, for example in 2006-02-08, I always have to think about or search elsewhere whether it is February 8 or August 2; and ambiguousness is a very bad thing for an encyclopedia. --Túrelio (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No I'm not putting every date as ISO 8601 format ;). If you compare the two revisions before and after, you will see that changing the format for 'date=' tags in cite web/news/paper templates ensures that the output date is wikilinked, so the user date preference works (references 1, 2 and 4). Thanks Rjwilmsi  07:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Again learned something. --Túrelio (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The link you show in the message text says the ISO format "recommended", not "required". Your revisions appear to be unnecessary.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * By providing the dates in the ISO format they are wikilinked so the user date preference works. I also correct misformatted dates e.g. YYYY/MM/DD or ones with ordinal suffixes etc. I consider this to be useful. Thanks Rjwilmsi  16:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Further to this, the before and after revisions of the page you changed my work on has visible changes in that the date for references 4, 9, 15, 23, 28 is now wikilinked. Your change made no visible difference to the page. If you (RJH) do reply to me here, please bear this in mind. Rjwilmsi  16:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See my note below. It undoubtedly looks fine for you since you are viewing everything in ISO 8601. That is not true for me.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you've misunderstood. Have you set your user date preference (in your user preferences on the Date and Time tab)? I've set my preference as the European format of D Month YYYY and by putting these dates within cite-type templates in the ISO format, they all display as the European format to me rather than in different format(s) as entered by the user. For other users the dates will all display iin their chosen format (American Month D, YYYY for example). Thanks Rjwilmsi  17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(Moved from my user page) I do not believe it is necessary for you to change a linked date to ISO 8601, as the table under MOS:SYL shows. So again I think your revisions are unnecessary and just result in excess watch-page checking.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary: both of us are acting in good faith, and I've posted what I hope is a full explanation of how ISO dates in templates work on RJHall's user page. Rjwilmsi  22:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

ISO dates (2)

 * Hi - I disagree with your correction of dates as per this edit. Reading the month day year or year date month format is easier than yy-mm-dd.  The ISO format of course can translate with the use of wikilinks but your edit d not ad wikilinks .  Moreover the template:citation instructions state that it is only for the field accessdate (the date when the url was accessed) that the unlinked ISO 8601 format is preferred.  Not date!  I think using the ISO 8601 format for date and linking it will allow preferences to show but will give rise in my opinion to too many links - ie makes it less readable.  To view a date according to preferences in this context is not important.  I think thus your edits are not useful :-( Sorry --Matilda talk 21:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikilinks did come up but I still think overlinking is an issue --Matilda talk 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The template changed in the above edit was a cite news one; quoting from Template:cite news "date: Date of publication. The ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format is recommended, and will be automatically wikilinked to enable date user preferences if used". Personally I find articles much more readable if dates are presented in a consistent format (of my choice), and it's easier to compare dates of references if they share a format. Thanks  Rjwilmsi  21:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK - :-) --Matilda talk 01:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I've noticed you changing the date formats. Please don't. There are some editors who strongly prefer other date formats over ISO. Gimmetrow 07:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think if you look you will find that they are viewed in user preference format and that they are in footnotes only--Matilda talk 07:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone doesn't have a user preference set, then ISO formatted dates display in ISO format. Gimmetrow 04:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but the 'retrieved on' dates were already in ISO format. So, consider the following: after your revert of my edit we have:
 * - for users with no date preference: the dates of the reference are in Month D YYYY (American) format, and the accessdate (shows as 'retrieved on') are in ISO format.
 * - for users with a date preference: the dates of the reference are in Month D YYYY format, and the accessdate (shows as 'retrieved on') are in the user's chosen format.
 * After my edit, before you reverted it, we have:
 * - for users with a date preference: both sets of dates are in the user's chosen format
 * - for users with no date preference: both set of dates are in ISO format.
 * My edit brought consistency to the dates in the references, and allows users with a date preference to view all the dates as they wish. Your reversion takes us back to a situation where nobody can view the dates in the same way, unless their date preference happens to be Month D YYYY. WP:DATE doesn't have a preference for American format over any other, so your revert seems unreasonable. Thanks Rjwilmsi  04:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit brought inconsistency (one of the dates was not in ISO format), and added unnecessary blue links. The accessdates don't really need to be linked either but that's the form used in that article. Gimmetrow 04:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed that inconsistency by changing 'date' to 'year'. Unfortunately my script doesn't yet catch entries that use date instead of year like that, but I'm going to look into it. I believe that the blue linking of dates is an open mediawiki bug/feature request to allow dates to be rendered in the user's preferred format without wikilinking them. Thanks Rjwilmsi  04:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You "removed that inconsistency" by falsifying the citation. Gimmetrow 06:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In any event, you are running an unauthorized bot, and you need to stop immediately or be blocked. Gimmetrow 06:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Final warning. You will be blocked under WP:BOT if you do not stop. Gimmetrow 07:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Seems like you've stopped. I doubt there is consensus for your edits across all Wikipedia. At least a few editors would like to forbid ISO dates, since most editors presumably don't have a preference setting. A recent trend away from wikilinked dates led to wording in the Manual of Style that wikilinking dates is not necessary. Thus, you should routinely find citations with non-wikilinked dates, and since these are intentional editorial choices and not disallowed by any style guideline (and not even by the template documentation), they really shouldn't be changed automatically. Gimmetrow 18:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for this comment. I know understand your objections. I had not realised that there was a lack of consensus in this area, as MOS:SYL there is nothing to say whether date wikilinking is good or bad, it just says that it can be done. I assumed that if it could then it was agreed that it was okay. Nevermind. Now, I would still like to improve citations in articles (without causing contention), as I think there are errors I could fix. So, for example I assume that I can correct dates that are not in the accepted formats at Date e.g. removing ordinals and commas between days and months, using 'January' instead of 'january', 'Jan.' or 'Jan' and converting formats like 2007/11/25 or 2008-4-15 to the closest allowed format (all in date fields of templates, not titles). I already do this, so I think I can just disable some of my find&replace entries to only do the above rather than changing all unlinked dates into ISO ones. I hope you can respond promptly so I can try this out. I will then try a few edits to see how I go. Thanks Rjwilmsi  19:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think there is much objection to "Nov. 1st" -> "November 1". But good luck. The cite templates are somewhat inconsistent among themselves on some points. Gimmetrow 19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you were only taking unlinked dates and adding the links, without changing them to ISO, I wouldn't have raised a fuss. Gimmetrow 19:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, I'll look at doing that too then. Rjwilmsi  19:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Manual of Style (dates and numbers) requires that dates look consistent to users who are not registered or who have not set a date preference. If you change a date in the form (for example) DD MONTH YYYY to the ISO format, you have created an inconsistency. If you want to improve the articles, I suggest you determine the dominant date format in a particular article, and change any non-conforming dates to match the dominant format. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of bot to mass autoformat dates
Dear Rjwilmsi—The activity of this bot was reported to me today by a concerned editor who saw its functions at Premier Election Solutions. I wonder whether you're aware that the guideline for the autoformatting of full dates, at MOSNUM (the explicit reference in the bot text), has for some time made it clear that autoformatting is not mandatory. I wonder whether you're also aware of the significant disquiet among many Wikipedians over the disadvantages of the autoformatting system, which have been the subject of exigesis and debate on the talk pages of MOSNUM and MOS (and elsewhere), and resulted in a very large petition last year to Bugzilla. The fact that the petition has still not resolved the issues technically and appears unlikely to in the foreseeable future, has strengthened pressure among many editors to discourage its use, and even to do away with the system altogether.

In view of the gradual move in the opposite direction from the apparent function of the bot, I wonder whether you'd like to discuss the continued use of the bot. Probably here is appropriate. Tony  (talk)  13:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

PS I see from your contributions page that this bot is operating on only citation dates. Are you aware of any similar bot that performs this role on unautoformatted dates in the main text of articles? Tony  (talk)  13:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added to the MOS discussion. Rjwilmsi  17:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Date (mis)fixes
Hey, be careful the fixed dates are actually plausible -- I just fixed it for you, but here the date was not only changed, but changed to something that doesn't even exist. (On another note, has the template date format changed? I thought I followed all that pretty closely when I filled it all out.) -Bbik ★ 09:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for pointing out the error. I was incorrectly replacing both the month and day as the day, rather than the month as the month and the day as the day. I've fixed the error, so it won't happen again.
 * I don't think the template has changed recently (but I haven't checked). We all make mistakes on occasion ;) Rjwilmsi  11:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Line of succession to the British throne
If you want to make some of the entries say born, you'll have to make sure you do that for all of them! :) I changed the few that you did for now, but to maintain consistency, if they need to be changed, they ought to ALL be changed. Morhange (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that's fair enough. I've gone back to the article and changed all entries (I think). Thanks Rjwilmsi  22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Reflist
Please do not replace < references / > with by bot.  There is no guideline reason for making these replacements, reflist only reduces the font size (which not everyone wants or needs) and there is no need to reduce font size on articles with only a few references (those with less than perfect eyesight may appreciate a regular font size: reduction makes sense when there is a long list). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all I'm not a bot: I'm using AWB to assist manual editing. The change to is an AWB general fix. I've checked the María Corina Machado page, and the change to the reflist parameter doesn't seem to have changed the font size at all. Still, if you feel this general fix is incorrect, please post an AWB bug report. Thanks  Rjwilmsi  17:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot  23:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Regular expressions
Rjwilmsi, how did you get so proficient at regular expressions? If I wish to fully rejoin RegExTypoFix I think I need to code at your level. Any books/websites that you can recommend? Thanks! --mboverload @ 06:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For reference I use but I mostly learn by trial and error!  Rjwilmsi  06:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

format=PDF
What's the point of adding this when the link has an Acrobat icon, indicating the file type? All it appears to do is to add cruft. --Adoniscik(t, c) 18:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems helpful to me – many people won't know that a white rectangle with three red lines is a PDF document. Perhaps you should raise this on the template talk pages if you think the format field should be deprecated. Rjwilmsi  19:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty safe to assume a person who is going to seek out a technical article knows what an Acrobat document is. A situation in which indicating the format as PDF would be useful is when the server has renamed the extension but preserved the content type. --Adoniscik(t, c) 20:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you should definitely raise this on the template talk page. If there is a consensus in your favour, the templates can probably be changed to ignore the format field where an icon is available for the URL's extension. Rjwilmsi  21:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Autowiki error
It seems your autowiki caused a problem here. It removed the accessdate parameter without doing anything else... Is this intended behavior (it seems like it shouldn't be...)? --Falcorian (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, never mind! It removed a double parameter. --Falcorian (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the idea ;) Rjwilmsi  00:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, I came here wanting to ask the same question after seeing this edit. You might want to add that to User:Rjwilmsi. :) Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm working on updating the info on my user page. Thanks Rjwilmsi  11:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of wikilinking dates?
Seems like useless behavior, especially as the autoformatting of dates is turning out to be such a problem, e.g. at FAC. There they are trying to figure out how to get rid of it in citations. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know about FACs. I've been contributing to the work on providing an option for non-wikilinked dates in cite templates (see discussion at Template_talk:cite web) and have offered to assist in its application to particular page(s). When the template change goes ahead I'll review my current work, though based on the provisional change my edits won't break the new format option. I'm also doing much more than just wikilinking dates! Rjwilmsi  20:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer and for having foresight! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 21:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

not in quotes, please
Please, correct your edit to this article as it was done in a quote, which cannot be touched. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. My apologies, I hadn't seen that the paragraph was a quote. Rjwilmsi  07:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Arabic names
It is, in my opinion, an enormous mistake to shoehorn Arabic names into the English style of inherited surnames.

Some people of Arabic background, who live in European countries, or in North America, have adopted the familiar naming scheme where a child inherits his or her father's last name as a surname. But the vast majority of people with Arabic names don't work that way. Pashtun speakers follow the Arabic style.

In the Arabic system the father's first name becomes the child's last name. So, Nasrat Khan's son is Hiztullah Nasrat.

It is deeply counterproductive to shoehorn their names into the English style system.

You might come across individuals who seem to have inherited surnames -- who don't have inherited surnames. After centuries of international commerce, and colonization, English speaking people have names from around the world, making for very rich and complex name-spaces. Arabic speaking people don't have this. Names like "John Smith", that are open to confusion, and require additional disambiguation, are much more common. This disambiguation comes from appending regional names, tribal names, occupation-related names, and nickname-like names. But these are not English style surnames.

My concern is not theoretical. The DoD tried to shoehorn the names of the Guantanamo captives, and their associates, into the English style of inherited surnames. It proved to be an unbelievably enormous disaster.

Two years ago a suspected member of al Qaeda named Abu mumble Al Masri was killed. A picture of him was widely circulated. It had been on the official "rewards for justice" site for several years. It took me less than two seconds to realize a serious mistake had been made. The image was actually a picture of Abu Hamza Al Masri, who was still alive, and living in the United Kingdom. Abu Hamza Al Masri was the controversial former Imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque.

Abu Layth Al Libi was reported killed about a year ago. He was reported to have been the number three guy in Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, the DoD had already reported that Abu Faraj al-Libbi was the number three in Al Qaeda.

The DoD failed to figure out a consistent name for about a third of the captives. My reading of the public record is that they released a handful of serious suspects due to bone-headed name confusion, and continued to hold dozens of captives due to bone-headed name confusion.

Please, let's not repeat their mistakes. Let's not try to shoehorn their names into the English style of surnames... Geo Swan (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you refer to this edit, and the insertion of a template. This is a general fix by AWB. Please report it as a bug on the bugs page if you feel it's incorrect.  Rjwilmsi  06:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I admit that Geo Swan may have a point I can say with absolute certainty that the DOD is not going to use wikipedia to determine inel for a terrorist.--Kumioko (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Adminship?
Have you ever considered admin coaching or RfA? I think you would make a great sysop. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't really be interested in becoming too deeply involved in Wikipedia's politics, but thanks for the suggestion. Rjwilmsi  22:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

them e#%#&#* templates
Excuse the profanity, but since you seem to have taken an interest in the template issues, do you have a template that properly formats the MLA (Modern Language Association) citation guide rather than the APA (American Psychiatric Association) guide used in the templates? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC).
 * I'm quite new to wikipedia citation templates, so I'm afraid I have no idea what the two formats you talk about are. ;) Rjwilmsi  19:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

AWB REGEX question
If you don't mind I have a question about how to do something in AWB. There is a new template called Lifetime that replaces the defaultsort template and birth and death cats. I have been attemping to use it on the Military biographies and I was wondering if there was a better way than the way I am currently doing it. What I am currently doing is find {{DEFAULTSORT: replace with {{Lifetime||

then deleting the birth and death cats manually after I have input the birth and death year manually. Including Living person and missing. It seems to me that there must be an easier way than the way I am doing it. One problem that I have is that the categories for Birth, death, missing and living person are all over so I can't write it to say

{{DEFAULTSORT:[line break] [[Category:birth[code][linebreak [[Category:death[code].

and as far as I know there is no way of looking for multiple things within the same find and replace. I also go back through once I am done adding the Lifetime template and do a find and replace for birth, death missing and living person cats.--Kumioko (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to help. You haven't defined your requirements very well (I work in IT...) but how's this for dead people? Rjwilmsi  22:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll need to provide examples of articles for missing and still living people. Rjwilmsi  22:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I worked it out from the template documentation. I've posted working regexes on the AWB feature request page. Rjwilmsi  07:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with these edits. The Lifetime template should only be subst and these edits where the DEFAULTSORT, birth year, and death year or Living people cats already exist accomplishes nothing useful. The recent TfD for this template showed that the community has strong concerns about the use of this template and, thus, controversial for AWB use. Double Blue (Talk) 15:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I was only really testing it for Kumioko who had requested help with it. The template documentation does not say "The Lifetime template should only be subst" – it adds this as an option. I will stop using this template if it bothers you so much, but I don't see that I've done anything wrong – I have correctly implemented the template as per the documentation, and usually perform other fixes a the same time. Rjwilmsi  15:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Double Blue  (Talk) 15:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll hold off on making any more changes of replaceingthe defaultsort with Lifetime. I wasn't aware of any contriversy but from my experience in wikipedia it doesn't surprise me. Nearly every change suggested to change anything in wikipedia is contriversial. Its a miracle anything gets done.--Kumioko (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with any democracy!!!! Rjwilmsi  07:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT removal
Hello! I reverted this. Was it a mistake or can you explain the reasoning behind the removal? Plrk (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article had two identical entries, so I removed one per my example at User:Rjwilmsi.  Rjwilmsi  20:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, my mistake. Sorry. Plrk (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Credible author
Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not really in to wikipedia politics and edit disputes. I think you should establish a consensus for change on the article's talk page rather than trying to bring in editors who don't have a relation to the article in question. Rjwilmsi  23:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceres Page "Wikify"
Hi. I noticed you flagged the Ceres article as needing to be wikified? I am a new user and have some familiarity with the organization and would like to update the page. Can you give me any advice on how to go about doing this? Thanks! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boston Love (talk • contribs) 16:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Start with the help pages from Your first article. After that it's best to find a similar article to the one you want to edit and learn from the formatting and style of that one. Rjwilmsi  22:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

AWB
Hi, I'm sure you're doing a lot of good work, but this edit summary was not at all accurate, and the edit not necessary.  Ty  00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed 'In October of 2006' to 'In October 2006' and the edit summary said "no 'of' between a month and a year...". What's the problem? Rjwilmsi  06:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I notice your work almost continuously on Indonesian articles - would you be able to help with an issue at the Indonesian project at all? SatuSuro 06:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends. What's the issue? Rjwilmsi  07:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Heheheh to the conditional response - i like it - i notice that your edits show a lot up at: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/List_of_Indonesia-related_topics and I wondered if and only if your view of an Indonesian article shows a red discussion tab whether you wouldnt mind throwing a (WP Indonesia)) tag on the talk page if possible - so I can follow up on it

If its a problem - dont worry about it - its just that its very frustrating with seeing that there are eds who regularly follow through the list of indonesian articles as i see you and djoehana do - and it might be that you can catch the un tagged arts that i might not otherwise see at the recent changes list - but only if it is not a problem - if it is forget it SatuSuro 07:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So you want the talk page for every article listed on List of Indonesia-related topics to be tagged with if the talk page currently doesn't exist? If that's what you want I can do it with AWB.  Rjwilmsi  08:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

wow dont offer its gonna be a problem - i have a backlog of about 1,000 arts that havent been adequately assessed - but hey youd go down in my hero list if you could do that without any pain - id be eternally grateful for a start - i work from an imac most of the time at the mo so i cannot run awb myself SatuSuro 08:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll start now, in alphabetical order. Post back here if it's going wrong, else wait until I've gone through the alphabet. Rjwilmsi  09:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That was very generous of you and your time - thank you very much - that has helped me greatly - I really appreciate that - it has brought up some deleted items which it is good to check up abut - and has helped some indonesian project management issues immensely - much appreciated SatuSuro 11:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - I had not checked adequately the area for deleted articles - my bad - I have asked an admin friend to remove the items - sorry I Hadnt checked properly before asking SatuSuro 12:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Google
Do you know if search for anything in google, then why wikipedia is shown first?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Google ranks pages according to popularity and relevance. Wikipedia is one of the most popular sites on the internet, so Wikipedia often ranks highly for searches matching one of its articles. Rjwilmsi  07:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not clear. For example the article Google bomb states how google search works: "the way that Google's algorithm works, a page will be ranked higher if the sites that link to that page use consistent anchor text". "a page will be ranked higher if the sites that link to that page use consistent anchor text" - can you understand what does this mean?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I take from that that whenever someone links to Wikipedia the link to that page is called "Wikipedia" instead of "Awesome page". --mboverload @  23:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RegEx Triple
As a developer of RETF, please see this page =) --mboverload @  23:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm on #wikipedia and #autowikibrowser - wanna talk? --mboverload @ 05:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never used IRC before, not sure if it's more useful than just posting messages. I'm about to go on holiday for two weeks though, so you'll have to hold on till then. Rjwilmsi  06:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok - have fun and remember that vacations are for relaxing - not working on your laptop =) --mboverload @ 06:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Helen Miller
I've undone your edit to Helen Miller - you removed Category:Living people. As the infobox notes, not only is Mrs. Miller a living person, she is an incumbent state representative. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There were two entries for Category:Living people, so I removed one of them. If you look at the article after my edit Helen Miller is still in the Living people category. Rjwilmsi  06:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Invite
69.23.202.204 (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)