User talk:Stmrlbs/Archive/002

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Stmrlbs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Default template parameters

Hi Stmrlbs. I have now responded to your question about "default template parameters" on my talk page.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Template testing

As David pointed out, the js scheme is not that useful, since it would only work for templates directly transcluded. meta templates, and other templates that are not directly transcluded would not be swapped out. Basically i was thinking of a simplified version of the preview part of n:Wikinews:Make Lead. (I believe on wikipedia there is a live preview gadget that would be much more closer to what i was suggesting). The basic idea is get the wikicode of the page, use a regex to turn {{foo|bar|...}} into {{User:example/foo|bar|...}} (provided that user:Example/foo) existed). and then use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=parse&text=converted_wikii_source_code to parse it, and finally display it to the user. If your still interested, i could probably code it up fairly easily, but it wouldn't be that useful, as it would not look at meta templates. Bawolff (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Stmrlbs and Bawolff: I have now created and documented the {{test-mode}} template.

Bawolff: Javascript could make it simpler to run the "page test-mode" for {{test-mode}}. I could use your help with that, since I don't know enough javascript to code that. I will tell you more when I have thought more about that. But currently we don't need that, since the devs haven't yet "fixed" bugzilla:19006, so we still have the very convenient "personal test-mode" in {{test-mode}}.

--David Göthberg (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Very different situation

In relation to this, I'd like to mention that this situation has nothing to do with personal POV (for or against altmed), but about two RfCs. There is quite a history there and it resembles nothing like any differences we have ever had. Please be careful. You have been doing very valuable work that's appreciated, so keep it up and don't get injured by getting too close to Ludwigs2's war. There is an overwhelming majority of editors against him. He's editing against a clear consensus. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I don't care what the situation is with you and Ludwigs2. The pattern I see with you has nothing to do with what the disagreement is about. The pattern is the way that you consistently try to muddy the waters by implying that the person that you are in disagreement with is a meatpuppet/sockpuppet or associated with someone that you've disagreed with in the past. With Ludwigs2, it is the way you keep implying that he is a meatpuppet/sockpuppet of Levine2112. With me, the same thing. With Hans, it was the implication that he was a meatpuppet of Dr.Jhingaadey. With Unomi, it was statements implying that he was a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Martinphi. It is a way of diverting the discussion away from the topic and throwing bad faith accusations against whoever you are opposing. It is especially disturbing when I see you use this against new editors. You repeatedly have said that you have "changed your mind now that you know us better", but this is the problem, you target new editors, then when what you try to fling doesn't stick, and the new editors become established editors (those editors that don't get bullied away from Wikipedia), then you imply that they've "proven themselves" to you. New editors do not need to prove themselves to you. You as an established editor should not be flinging these bad faith accusations at editors, new or old. You have been warned about this before. If you really think someone is a sockpuppet, then make a case, file an SPI, but keep the discussion on an article to the issue - don't use meatpuppet/sockpuppet implications to cloud whatever issue you are discussing and to try to smear the character of opposing editors. It really is an dirty way of trying to manipulate opinion. stmrlbs|talk 00:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you have the ability to recognize it as two different issues. In this case it's a blended issue because Ludwigs2 is using the situation to seek revenge for losing two RfCs and being called on his refusal to abide by consensus and edit warring over it, which means that any retaliation he makes will quickly turn into a suicide mission. It's happened before to others who have attacked me. The ArbCom I was involved in ended with my vindication, and the indef banning of my opponents. Now he's trying to attack me on civility(?) grounds as a diversion and retaliation for his numerous actual gross violations of policy. In such a case, incivility is the lesser evil. But your comments about my accusations is taken to heart. When I see it from your perspective I can understand your concerns. Maybe I'm too paranoid at times. It's likely because I often deal with socks and that probably affects my perception, causing me to see spooks where there are none. I follow the principles outlined at WP:DUCK and WP:MEAT and sometimes am mistaken. That is unfortunate for those involved. It's unfortunately pretty standard practice, but that's not always a good enough excuse, though understandable at the time and under the given circumstances, where socks and meatpuppetry actually rule the day. We are often editing very touchy subjects where disruption is common. Unfortunately innocent editors become collateral damage. I am sorry about my early suspicions of you. They were apparently unjustified, even if others shared them. When you arrived there was quite a bit of behind the scenes speculation about your possible identity and how your editing and comments raised suspicions. I should probably have just kept the suspicions to myself, instead of voicing them. You ended up showing me wrong, and I'm glad you did. I'd rather think highly of you than always suspecting you. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh Hai

Long time no see. :) Unomi (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Unomi! Just working a lot. I get home, and all I want is a good mystery that is solved in a couple of hours (with all loose ends nicely tied up). Or even better - an hour of the dog whisperer, where even the worst problems are solved with calm assertive energy, and a long walk with the pack. Hey, do you think Wikipedia needs a "whisperer".. haha.. stmrlbs|talk 02:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A favour if I may

I have a favour to ask of you: I was wondering if you could perhaps indent/organize {{jcon}} the way that you did {{infobox road}} in your sandbox? I already owe you big time, but this would be like the cherry on top of the sundae.

Cheers! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

yes, of course! But, it will have to wait until the weekend. I have been working too many hours lately - but I will have more time on the weekend. stmrlbs|talk 02:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I figured, you've been absent the past few weeks. Things have improved leaps and bounds on the road front, and Ontario-USRD relations are probably better than they've ever been. Anyways, hope all is well, and thank you :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chiropractic controversy and criticism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chiropractic controversy and criticism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic controversy and criticism. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - I am notifying you because you participated in the original AfD. DigitalC (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chiropractic controversy and criticism

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chiropractic controversy and criticism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic controversy and criticism (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Commented out your sandbox

I took the liberty of commenting out User talk:Stmrlbs/sandbox2/archive/003 which contained an inclusion of Jimbo Wales' talk page as a template. I did this because the "What links here" for articles mentioned on Jimbo Wales' page were pointing to your sandbox, and I'd ended up opening it for a second time today (I was thinking about starting Spanish Data Protection Agency which I mentioned there, so I wanted to see if any pages linking to it had useful information. Of course now this page links to it, but I know that. ;) ). Anyway, I don't think you'd care, but if you do you can just revert me. But bear in mind that the stats.grok.se link showed that 8 people viewed that page in the last month, not including me! Wnt (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

no problem. I should have deleted that a long time ago. Thanks. Now to remember how to get a page deleted deleted (it has been a while since I've done that). stmrlbs|talk 01:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Test of the template Search prefixes

Testing the Search prefixes template to set up a search of the various deletion discussions. Click on "information about deleted articles" for general information about deleted articles. You can also see the areas searched by clicking the button below the search button. This template can be set up to search any set of wikipedia areas - I just used the different areas for deletion discussions as an example.

Information about Deleted articles There are three processes under which mainspace articles are deleted: 1) speedy deletion; 2) proposed deletion (prod) and 3) Articles for deletion (AfD). For more information, see Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? To find out why the particular article you posted was deleted, go to the deletion log and type into the search field marked "title," the exact name of the article, mindful of the original capitalization, spelling and spacing. The deletion log entry will show when the article was deleted, by which administrator, and typically contain a deletion summary listing the reason for deletion. If you wish to contest this deletion, please contact the administrator first on his or her talk page and, depending on the circumstances, politely explain why you think the article should be restored, or why a copy should be provided to you so you can address the reason for deletion before reposting the article. If this is not fruitful, you have the option of listing the article at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but it will likely only be restored if the deletion was clearly improper. Hope this has helped. click show to see deletion discussions searched Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/ Wikipedia:Copyright problems Wikipedia:Deletion review/ Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/ Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/ Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/ Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/ Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/ Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/ Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion Wikipedia_talk:Copyright problems Wikipedia_talk:Deletion review Wikipedia_talk:Miscellaneous deletion Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany for deletion Wikipedia_talk:Pages for deletion Wikipedia_talk:Templates for deletion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.

Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis[1][2], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=71251228 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.