This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wikidudeman. 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.
If you look at User:Agathoclea#cheatsheet you see how I proceed with these articles - cut and paste the articlename into the lead and the interwiki link - preview - follow the interwikilink to the German wikipedia to see if it is correct and bring back the infobox from there in the process. That way you don't need to worry about the category and the coordinates. Agathoclea20:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It should have been: User:Agathoclea#Cheatsheet. There after a few other things you see the template I use for whichever district I am currently working on. All it needs is the name of the place in the lead ie between the boldmarkings and in the interwikilink. It is the interwikilink that then leads you to the german article or to a disambiguation which in turn leads you to the right counterpart. If the latter is the case it needs adjusting. Anything else unclear? Agathoclea21:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
No, It's the way they are put together. I'm very unfamiliar with the projects you're talking about so it's difficult for me to interpret what you're saying. Wikidudeman(talk)21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry then I can't help - even though German is my mothertounge it is not my main language anymore and I would have even more difficulties to explain things I mainly deal with in English. Agathoclea21:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's a pragmatic question for you: do you want to keep defending your opposition to Dreadstar's RfA if it results in Dreadstar becoming an admin? I think your vote rationale, and your comments on both support and oppose votes, come across to many as being exaggerated and nitpicky. This is unfortunate, because there are good reasons to oppose.
The more you try to defend your reasons, the more people will rally to support Dreadstar because they disagree with you. I tell you this because I'm in the somewhat unusual position of disagreeing with some of your reasons but agreeing with your vote.
One exaggerated part is to say he has a "constant assumption of bad faith" -- anyone who looks at his contributions outside the paranormal will find that he is very good at AGF most of the time, but there have been particular incidents in paranormal topics where he played a part in escalating the hostility. These incidents are bad, but they can't be described as "constant".
The nitpicky parts are criticizing him for not editing enough when he was in the hospital, for using admin coaching, and for asking politely about his 3RR block when it was in fact a confusing enough situation to ask about. To be fair, I don't think you've revisited these points in your replies, so they're not really a problem. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Parapsychology FA status? F-ing awesome! w00t! I actually wrote substantial parts of it from scratch! Shame Wikipedia doesn't pay their writers : ) But this is one of those things people are talking about when they say it's not about the money, it's the satisfaction of a job well done. Well done. --Nealparr(talk to me)23:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
... most of the "pimp"-containing accounts that I'm blocking now are old, abandoned accounts that should have been blocked months ago (if not years). They're just being blocked to keep them from being revived someday (and because the term 'pimp' is unacceptable). DS19:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking a bot would not leave a trail. See User_talk:Emijrp how he was "caught" using a bot. He was quickly approved and I never saw his name (or the bots) user pages ever again. His bot might be useful to you. Spryde16:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I wouldn't know where to start. And still, I think that even bot edits show up on the newpage log. Perhaps you could show me where to start as far as operating a bot goes. Wikidudeman(talk)20:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's get this straight from the start: you would still edit like you do now. The only difference is, you'll have an account (e.g Wikidudemanbot) which you'll work from, and this will be flagged as a bot by a bureaucrat. You personally won't have to do a thing, except log into your bot account instead of your normal one. The process is described on WP:BOTS. You'd need to request a flag, but once it is flagged it won't spam recent changes (I don't know about newpages, but all the same...) * Aillema20:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
But that's not what a bot is. Isn't a "bot" automated? When I use AWB I am the one personally making the edits one at a time and overlooking each one prior to making them. I see no purpose in creating a separate account to make AWB edits with and labeling that a "bot account" when it's not actually a bot at all. Wikidudeman(talk)20:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:BOTS says "Robots or bots are automatic processes that interact with Wikipedia as though they were human editors." As mentioned above, I believe that even bot newpage creations show up, as User_talk:Emijrp's bot was recently banned for flooding newpages because he exceeded his limit of pages per minute. Wikidudeman(talk)20:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Have a good read of the whole page. Bots can and are run manually. I even know users who do... anyway, with AWB, a certain number of edits per minute requires you to get a flag. * Aillema20:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The "manually assisted" part means that the bot is automatically "turned on" by the human operator and thereafter runs automatically making edits. None of my AWB edits are automatic, they're all manual. Do you have links for that? Specifying the specific number of edits requiring that editors get a flag. Wikidudeman(talk)20:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi - would you be interested in leaving a note at WT:CLINMED (the Clinical Medicine Wikiproject) soliciting feedback for the anabolic steroids article? It's a pretty solid group of editors, and you may get more diverse viewpoints than just mine that way. But I won't leave a note there unless it's OK with you. If you'd prefer not to, that's fine. MastCellTalk17:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I would actually prefer not to at this time. I think we're making good improvments on the article as is and I would prefer we do so at a slow pace opposed to having newer editors hash up old topics already resolved. Perhaps we could leave a note or two on the talk pages of some of the projects most active members though after we resolve what we're currently discussing in the article and we both see no problems with it. Wikidudeman(talk)17:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
If you did I would try to find time to review it carefully. It is very good, but I'm sure there are a few improvements that could be made in response to a FA-level review. I certainly wouldn't vote against it. Tim Vickers17:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
RFA Thanks
Click there to open your card! → → →
Dearest Wikidudeman,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond, for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day.
The template in question is {{usernameblocked}}. There isn't any point in using it however unless you're an admin and can block the user with the username issue. If you want to report a user with a questionable username you can bring them to either Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. If you want to voice your concern to another user about their username you can use the following talk page template: {{subst:UsernameConcern}} to try and start a discussion about it. I hope that answers your question. Cheers. Dina03:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Anomalous phenomena
Hey WDM, you did such a great job of pushing parapsychology through to GA and FA status, I was wondering if you'd review another article that I worked on and make recommendations on it. Like a year or two ago anomalous phenomena was the controversial paranormal article of the time and suffered many edit wars, so I rewrote it, drawing quite a bit from the falsification article. It's been sitting there for some time unedited, so it's stable, and (I think) pretty well-written. It probably needs some work, so let me know what you think. Is it GA worthy, potentially FA worthy? --Nealparr(talk to me)15:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Any article is FA worthy. That article shouldn't be difficult to push to GA status. I'll add it to my list and we can work on getting it to GA status. Wikidudeman(talk)03:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't a comment on you. I'm just collecting useful or fun things on that page. I unfortunately thought I'd need that link. Actually what I thought is that if you kept up the good work I'd support your next RfA, but also put that up for others to review. As I said, you keep being NPOV for a year, I'll support you. That edit was far from NPOV, but not enough to tip a balance. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs)04:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Martin, You link to an edit of mine (which you greatly misinterpreted BTW) and then have a big sign beside it which says "POV, connect the dots". Don't claim it's a "useful or fun thing" when you do such things. Wikidudeman(talk)04:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It's in my userspace. If you just look at the page history, you'll notice that I'm just collecting things, and that just happened to go at the bottom. Now I just put a {{clear}} there so it isn't seemingly connected any more. But it wasn't there for public consumption, or I'd have made sure it didn't look like that. In fact, I didn't even view the page after saving it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs)04:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Putting this here so as to leave the FA page as is:
Martin says he's in a "position" to get several articles to FA status? This is a point that I would definitely take issue. Moving on from that blusterous assertion, he says he is going to do all that he can to PREVENT articles from reaching FA status? What does this mean exactly? It sounds sort of like a threat to hijack the wikipedia process to make a point, clearly in violation of WP:POINT. I certainly hope he isn't serious. Wikidudeman(talk)00:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
We'll see about FA status- I'm not completely up on how the process works. As far as opposing an article becomming FA because of how it would be treated once it became FA, it's like telling a beauty queen not to go out and accept her crown because the stage is rigged to spray her with mud. When the mud is a perversion of NPOV, that is quite acceptable, because WP runs on NPOV. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs)06:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by my "last change" and vandalism. I have never been on, or edited, the band Om's page....as I don't know who they are. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what you are talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.19.59 (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Wikidudeman. I'm not sending out a ream of "thank you" spam for my RfA (although it did pass). I'm here to do two things; 1) Thank you for your support and your "defence" in the oppose section of my RfA. 2) Apologise for clearly misjudging you during your RfA. I sincerely promise to learn from your comments, and would be proud to offer support or indeed a nomination at your next RfA. Very Best Wishes. Pedro | Chat 11:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
RfA
My sincerest thanks, Wikidudeman. You are an honorable and just person, and I am thrilled that you gave me such an offer. I promise to do my best to never betray the trust you put into me with your great offer. I've added my name to the recall list as promised. Thanks again! Dreadstar†21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 55 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to vote in my nomination. I'm a new admin, so if you have any suggestions feel free to let me know. I would like to give a special shout out to Fang Aili, Phaedriel, and Anonymous Dissident, for their co-nominations. Thank you all!
I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by stealing borrowing someone else's card design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your giving me the opportunity to gain your trust and hopefully, eventually, your support....very impressive, I must say.. Dreadstar†09:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictures
Don't take it personally, but I reverted the picture move. It's not obvious unless you're on a smaller screen, but if you put a picture on both sides of the article body, when the browser is made narrower the text gets squeezed out from between them and is rendered unreadable. Very annoying! Maury18:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Well that's part of the format on Wikipedia, To put pictures on both sides. Though it's not that big of a deal. Many FA's do it that way. You could think about spacing them out down the article though. Wikidudeman(talk)18:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Ref tool
Thanks so much for the invitation! That is an awesome tool, I just gave it a try - it's brilliant! Saves time and typing. Thanks man, I really sppreciate your engaging me like this. I've admired your efforts and success in bringing articles to GA and FA status..very nice work.. Dreadstar†17:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
WDM - your talk page is on my watchlist and I wikistalked 'cause I love new tools. Were you aware of this one? All you need is a pubmed nubmer and it generates the rest for you. I find it quite handy, though it does pretty much the same thing as the two tools you mention on Dreadstar's talk page. WLU18:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I've had that for months. I even have it added to my bookmarks page where while I'm on a pubmed page I just click the bookmark and it automatically loads the reference for me. See User:Wouterstomp/Bookmarklet for how to do it. Though I need to use it more for ISBNs since I use it mainly for Pubmed citations. Wikidudeman(talk)18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I've got script envy - since I edit on explorer at work and safari at home, I can't use any of the Firefox-based tools :( I'm assuming this bars me from Hodgepodge... I do notice that I can use the bookmarklet tool with IE, huzzah! Thanks for the link. WLU18:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Some of the scripts in the Hodgepodge might work, It's worth a try. Though, Why not just download Firefox? It's small in size and is easy to work. Wikidudeman(talk)18:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
w00t! Pubmed bookmark works.
As I mentioned above, IE is my work computer and the diabolical IT department refuses to let me have firefox. I used FF on my home computer when it was a PC, now I've got a mac and I don't think they've got a FF for mac yet. Too bad, 'cause Safari sucks.
Tried it, once I cleared my cache, it didn't seem to do anything - resembles my pre-popups days. Sigh. Looks like I'll still have Twinkle-envy for a while now. Thanks for the suggestion though. Let me know if you ever manage to get it to work for IE. WLU14:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Reverted monobook to HP, and I lost popups. I'm going to leave it until tomorrow and see if that makes a difference. I'll let you know. WLU17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Prevalence of Homeopath
We're giving information not about worldwide prevalence, but about the few countries we found information for, with some very odd gaps. One really wonders whether the prevalence section is practical, or if we should just briefly mention it in the course of talking about Legal Trends. Adam Cuerdentalk18:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Barneca RfA thank you spam
Wikidudeman, thank you for your support during my RfA, especially after the concerns that were brought up by other editors. I'll keep all of the comments in mind in the coming months, and will try again later. In the mean time, if you see me doing something stupid, please let me know. See you around. --barneca (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like I got it to work, just include flexitags2.js instead of flexitags.js in your monobook.js and you should be in good shape. The parseTag call now recurses, so you can use any of the special strings as much as you want. Lil' Dice(yeah, I said it!) - talk02:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
.png)
