Last modified on 5 January 2008, at 00:08

User talk:24/archive

Return to the user page of "24/archive".

What are you doing?―Gliorszio 19:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

unblockEdit

I was asked to unblock you, as you apparently meant well.

Please do not archive other user's talk pages without their prior consent.

Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 22:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I say, blocking me for ten days for archiving talk pages! 24 23:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Just to say, I got you unblocked. You need to watch out for that Connel, he gets scared by new users sometimes, and is probably a very very evil man ;) Wonderfool
I don't think your friendly newcomer understood your joke. --Connel MacKenzie 23:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

What is your problem? --Connel MacKenzie 23:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 24 23:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

What are you doing?Edit

Why are you reverting my changes? User:24 23:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Because they are not in keeping with general Wiktionary practices. NOTE: I am not reverting all your changes. --Connel MacKenzie 23:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


BlockEdit

24,

I have temporarily reblocked you, as I am taking a little time to review your earlier changes. Clearly you believe you are making worthwhile contributions, and if I can I'd like to help you sort out how things are generally done on Wiktionary.

Many users have adopted the practice of keeping the full history of edits on their talk pages. Many do so for the sake of transparency, i.e. they have nothing to hide. Blanking people's changes to WT:VIP regarding yourself are particularly taboo. Repeating edits before the discussion as even ensued on the relevant talk page is impolite.

The changes of yours I rolled back I did for several reasons. Again note: I did not roll back all your changes. Archiving of other user's pages is clearly not desired (see above.) Those will probably be discussed more on WT:RFD or WT:BP.

Your user page redirects elsewhere, making it annoying to get to your talk page. That is also impolite. Archiving comments posted to your talk page (almost immediately!) is almost inexplicable. I guess you just prefer to have a perfectly blank talk page? Well, um, OK. Most people here don't do that though (see above.)

Lastly, my apologies. I blocked (er, re-blocked) you without hitting the three revert rule...although at the rate things were going that did seem a certainty. Nevertheless, I am sorry.

--Connel MacKenzie 00:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


One other note about immediately archiving comments: If someone comes along and makes an edit to something I enter, then you archive the text (only) to your archive page, it is much harder to identify that my post was tampered with. I do now know of any way to keep edit histories around, other than using the Move function. But that implies that the archive page is unable to grow...that a separate archive page is needed for each move. --Connel MacKenzie 00:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Welcome; please tread lightlyEdit

Sorry for pouncing earlier, if in fact you meant well. We've been dealing with a rash of vandalism hereabouts lately, and you clearly threw a number of us by jumping in with no history and rearranging the place. Under the circumstances, may I advise exercising a bit more reserve at first, while you become familiar with conventions? Adding good, valid content, which it looks like you have begun to do, will go over much better! --Dvortygirl 01:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

NicknameEdit

What does your nickname mean? Is it for the number of hours in a day or the television series? — Dennis Valeev 20:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Blueberries. 24 20:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Say what? — Dennis Valeev 21:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
"Blueberries." 24 21:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am at odds to understand that! o_O --Dennis Valeev 21:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


Favor/FavourEdit

If you're going to insist on maintaining Favour as a duplicate page yourself, then I strongly suggest that you look at Favor first. It has a lot more information than Favour — information you'll have to merge yourself any time anyone makes additions to Favor. This is why Wiktionary has the "Alternative spellings" subsection — so that the British spellers among us don't suffer the indignities of out-of-date material.

Welcoming newcomersEdit

A good way of welcoming newbies who don't format properly is to use the {{welcome}} template. Cheers. SemperBlotto 21:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


AHDEdit

Hi, is there a page similar to SAMPA and IPA for AHD? I would like to add AHD when I add the others but don't have a chart from which to work. Thanks, - TheDaveRoss 21:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. As far as I know, Wiktionary currently, and unfortunately, lacks an AHD chart. Perhaps I will work on one. For now, your best bet is to Google for a chart. 24 21:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


template:anatomyEdit

Just out of interest. What is your objection to this template having the same structure as all the other science and similar templates? SemperBlotto 22:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Triple template layers are unneeded. 24 22:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)



DONT VANDAL PLEASE

meanEdit

<Jun-Dai 20:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)> I've left you a comment on Talk:Mean. I'll leave you an hour or so to comment before I revert the page. </Jun-Dai>

Mean - repeated revertingEdit

I'm not at all sure what you were trying to accomplish by repeating the same reversion. I would STRONGLY appreciate it if you could find a better method of addressing this sort of issue.

Wiktionary has no rigid policy, but it does have consensus among its primary contributors. At least for most things, anyhow. Very few of the regular contributors right now take exception to WT:ELE. Although I personally think it could be (and maybe will be) done better, I accept it as the least controvercial layout we can use at this point in time.

I have proposed some changes to it. Very little of what I've proposed has actually been implemented. My ideas about what it should be were perhaps off here and there. But by discussing it on that page's talk page, WT:BP and elsewhere, I was able to understand why some people object to certain changes. I also got to hear other people offer their input. That is the basis of how we operate here.

Please, allow a full day between reversions. Sleeping on the change allows not only for you to better express your views, but also for external neutral parties to intercede.

Unfortunately, the multiple etymology folks have won out, for now. The changes you made look much like one solution I advocate. However, the consensus to date has been very strongly against this. If it hasn't been archived yet, then the conversation is probably in WT:BP.

  • Regarding policies:

Wiktionary is blissfully free of the overwhelming and stifling regulations of Wikipedia. The closest we are getting to it, are the proposed policy pages. As a community, Wiktionarians defend such ideals collectively. I have no interest in being hampered by offical policies when informal guidelines work better (particularly when followed.)

--Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

#WiktionaryEdit

<Perhaps> joined the IRC channel, *and left* while I was composing the above explanation.

While it is true that there is no policy at all, the policies that do exist serve as very certain guidelines. As much as I disagree with some aspects of WT:ELE, especially the handling of multiple etymologies, I understand that the Wiktionary community has adopted it and accepted it. Unfortunately, that means that if someone points to WT:ELE as a reason for doing something, then they win that argument, right then and there. The argument almost certainly will move to the talk page of WT:ELE or to WT:BP at that point, but the individual page edits (e.g. mean) stop at that point.

Also, anything policy that has unoffical status, can be read as a reflection of what actions have been used in the past for certain situations. A block for the three revert rule is a guideline, just like any of the rules we have here. To cite it as not being official policy is therefore no reason to unblock you...if I unblock you before the 24 hours are up, it is because I feel that you have demonstrated that you are willing to cooperate and that you are move forward from this misunderstanding. Patience is a valuable virtue here...it allows you to come to understandings with others that might otherwise be quashed.

--Connel MacKenzie 21:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to cooperate, though I'm not sure how to demonstrate that... If I am unblocked, I will not touch the mean article; instead I would like to create a mean/24 subpage to propose changes. Reverting is definitely, as I have seen today, not an effective way to go. Twenty Four 21:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have added yours as well as Jun-Dai's (and my own) formatting ideas to Wiktionary:Formatting_Policy_Proposal for consideration and debate, yours is Layout 3, please ammend it in any way you see fit so that it best represents what you feel is the best formatting for us to use as a group. Thanks, TheDaveRoss 21:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


pinyin rollbacksEdit

careful on your reverts such as boy...the tone counts themselves are OK - just not wikifying them, nor defining the entry at the tone count word. --Connel MacKenzie 03:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

apple flyEdit

Are you saying that ANY dipterous insect (insect with two wings) is an apply fly? SemperBlotto 21:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apparently. 24 21:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reverting ConnelEdit

Reverting someones changes shouldn't be done lightly other than in obvious cases of vandalism. I feel that this is the case with your and Jun-Dai's edits the other day, as well as your recent reversion of running text. It is best not to revert, but to ask the person who did the initial edit whcy they felt it was appropriate, so as to avoid conflict as much as possible. If Connel feels that the article is a copyvio and you feel it is not, discuss it, and if you cannot come to a joint conclusion, ask for general input. In this way no one gets upset over what they feel are inappropriate reversions, and harmony is maintained in the community. Thanks. - TheDaveRoss 20:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The text was not a copyright violation, though. The sentence had been lightly modified. 24 20:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I said, Connel obviously feels differently about that. Perhaps you should discuss it with him to better understand why he feels this way rather than simply reverting. If you just revert it then he will still feel it is copyvio, and feel the need to revert it again, leading to a rather unpleasant loop. If you discuss it and come to a mutual understanding, then progress can be made rather than sitting and spinning our tires. - TheDaveRoss 20:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 20:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)> To be honest, I think Connel should have been a little slower to act - or, to put it another way, 24's reversion wasn't any more rash than Connel's excision. Given the amount of work Connel does as an admin, I'm sure he simply saw a problem and fixed it, but upon closer inspection, it's not at all clear that the def is a copyright violation, and the fact that it was inserted by Eclecticology and reviewed by Mike, probably should have given him pause. I don't think I would have reverted it right away, but at the same time, I don't know that what 24 did was out of line - viewed outside of the context of 24's other actions, I don't think it would have been a notable incident. </Jun-Dai>


Please, don't drag me in... I added that sv. translation, but I never checked the definition for copyvios. \Mike 20:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anytime a non-vandalic contribution is made (as Connel's was, I feel sure) those who disagree with it ought to discuss it with the contributor. This is both a respectful and sensible thing to do. Was Connel's edit justified? Obviously he thinks so, and we ought to give him an opportunity to discuss this before we revert it. Was 24's edit justified? Obviously he thinks so, he also should have an opportunity to discuss this. I am merely stating that rather than revert, we should discuss and conclude. Seeing an (rv) in a subject line doesn't explain an action, and for reversion an explanation is wholly warranted. I am not passing judgement in any way about the content of the article, rather I am advocating discussion over immediate action. Connel provdided a source for whose copyright he feels was violated, those who feel differently should mention so on the talk page. - TheDaveRoss 20:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[1], 24 20:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey, hey, hey! Leaving out the relevant context is more than a little unfair! I posted comments about that somehwere (your talk page perhaps? Can't find it as it is archived so rapidly.) That seems to be the point: discussion about a reversion is the rule of the day. A one-click rollback allows for no comment (the comment text is auto-generated!) That is why I posted a comment to your talk page (or wherever) directly, soon afterwards. --Connel MacKenzie 21:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The first time you reverted my insertion of that template (and only time) was the first time I used it. I had previously used a <div> (<center> should not be used) and you explained that, but not my template. Also, you read past comments at /archive. 24 21:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I guess I might point out that conversations generally are not continued on archive pages. Moving a conversation too rapidly to an archive page has a chilling effect, much like someone folding their arms or holding their hands over their ears. --Connel MacKenzie 21:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is apparently another thing which you ought to discuss with Connel. I am assuming you posted that as some sort of precedent (or evidence of wrong-doing)? I am just seeing examples of working parallel to one another rather than together. Let's work together! - TheDaveRoss 21:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay. It seems to have been a mistake, anyway. 24 21:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 21:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)> Sorry, Mike. TheDaveRoss, I think you're treading tricky ground with these generalizations. 24's actions weren't really outside the boundaries of what a lot of people do here, and certainly myself, Connel, Hippietrail, Eclecticology, and numerous others have been guilty of the same crime. It really seems like your hold 24 accountable for this on the basis of his past actions, and not really on the basis of this particular action, which isn't really exceptional or particularly egregious. Connel's edit was, after all, much like a reversion in nature, and rather than make a comment before undoing Eclecticology's contribution, he simply overrode it.

And yes, 24, you should at least put a comment in the edit summary to explain what it is that you are doing (I don't mean "rv" or "reverting". Something more like "not a copyright violation - check the URL" or something. That way, if Connel disagrees with you, at least he'll have a place to start arguing.

</Jun-Dai>

Um, David, thanks for sticking up for me - yes, in general we like to discuss things before doing a revert. But in this case, I was completely wrong. Totally, completely incorrect. While I want to take exception to 24's rash revert, I'm in no position to throw rocks (as Jun-Dai pointed out, his revert was probably no more rash than my incorrect RNDC.) If I had *checked* the history first, I would have seen it was added by Ec, then checked closer. But I didn't. I saw what looked like a pattern I've seen several times before here, of someone citing a source that they copied directly. The sentence layout font etc. tricked my eye into thinking they were the same. So I followed the standard procedure of blanking the whole thing (can't do anything else if it really is a copyvio) and replacing it with the RNDC template. Returning later, I must say I am quite embarrassed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I am not trying to judge 24, this is a recent example of a trend which I dislike, and have seen a lot of. Your back and forth the other day was yet another example of it. I appologize if it seems I am attacking any one person, I agree that many of us are guilty of it from time to time. This is meant to be a collaborative project, and such projects can get mired if the participants don't work together and discuss things as they come up. When we decide that we know what is best and fail to explain why we feel that way, other people get offended, they get angry, and the whole project suffers for it. It doesn't take much extra time at all to explain something you do in a comment field or a talk page, and the extra effort saves a lot of aggravation and ill will. That is all I am trying to get across, to 24 and to the community. - TheDaveRoss 21:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dislike how I get these messages on my talk page when I use rv, but when others use Reverted edits by blah to last version by blah, their rollback goes completely unnoticed. 24 21:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I believe TheDave was directing his comments equally to both of us. I will try to do better, in the future. Exellently stated Dave! --Connel MacKenzie 21:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reverts that follow that particular format are automated when a sysop hits the revert button, but I agree with you. I think that the sysop reversion should have the comment field, as should the undo and move buttons. This is something the developers didn't see fit to include though. - TheDaveRoss 21:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1.5 will include the option to add summaries for page moves. Use of the rollback button should be limited only to absolute vandalism. I will try to use a more descriptive edit summary from now, but I would really like it if people would stop rolling my edits back. 24 21:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Center html vs. templateEdit

Hello 24,

Whatever I've said to you about the HTML center directive vs. using a "center" template seems lost, yet there also seems to be lingering ambiguity. To forestall ill will (as per the TheDave directive #593) I would like to simply ask you not to replace the html center command with a template. One type of substitution you made was to use an HTML2.0 "div" syntax which does not render correctly under some browsers. It is quite unclear to me why you would want to replace working html code with an additional layer of abstraction anyway. Additionally, it is extra load on the Wiki* server, completely unneeded. (The load on the server is one reason why we do not wikify every word in every sentence and every header.) Lastly, some factions here object to using templates at all; reserving their use to larger blocks of text makes sense, when trying not to ruffle feathers.

If you'd like to discuss this in more detail, it is my duty to at least hear you out.

--Connel MacKenzie 21:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What?! We don't yet have an article for 'header'? We are so lax. --Wytukaze 21:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
done
"div" is not HTML 2.0 syntax (look at the source of this very page and you'll see lots of divs -- and Wiktionary is valid XHTML transitional). Center is deprecated from HTML 4.0; instead, one should use stylesheets or CSS to center text. This is what I am trying to do. 24 21:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
24 has a point. We should not use <center>. Jun-Dai 22:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see your point; I strongly disagree with it. One flawed proponent dictating a corruption of an existing standard in very very wide use will see the marginalizing of that proponent. All browsers recognize "center", but not all browsers recognize css. We should use "center", not the counter-intuitive poorly and inconsistently parsed alternates. --Connel MacKenzie 22:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
text-align: center is used throughout the monobook stylesheet; in fact, the entire site's design is structured around CSS. If you can't see CSS, you're not going to be looking at a pretty Wiktionary anyway. Very, very, very, very few people use browsers which lack css-support. 24 22:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ya made me go and download Mosaic. Wiktionary.org does not render properly; an errant redirect prevents visiting en.wiktionary.org at all. --Connel MacKenzie 23:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
<Jun-Dai 23:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)> :-P :-$
:-(
It seems to be a convention that the developers use the latest and greatest, and shun anything that is deprecated. This is reasonable. The editors, on the other hand, tend to use deprecated tags because they represent simpler ways to define style locally. What really needs to happen is a layer of abstraction where we have wiki markup for these sorts of things. In the long run, there should be no <center> tags in the Wiktionary. In the short run, it might get the job done, but if we can avoid it, we're better off without it. Thus, I would say that both Connel and 24 are right. Or maybe they are both wrong. I give up. </Jun-Dai>
Correction: Lynx does render it just fine. My brain still dislikes it (as counter-intuitive) but lynx does parse it correctly (along with all of monobook.css.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
<Jun-Dai 23:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)> CSS is definitely counter-intuitive (so is object-oriented programming), but it makes larger HTML-based projects (like MediaWiki, or the projects I've workd on) much, much more feasible. That said, I have mixed feelings about including it inside the Wiki content. But as the developers have not provided us with hooks for these styles, we are stuck with a choice between two rotten apples. Personally, I would caution against using either approach as much as possible. If you find yourself looking at a <center> tag or a style="text-align:center" attribute, or somesuch, ask yourself if it's absolutely necessary to have it. The Wiktionary is not a very slick site. It's not even an adequate dictionary yet. So we shouldn't worry about prettifying things, and any efforts in those directions are liable to work against future efforts, since they will undoubtedly go against standards that have yet to be defined, wiki markup that has yet to be created and any move towards slickness (which will doubtlessly have a layer of abstraction via something like XML). </Jun-Dai>

EtymologyEdit

24, I appreciate your endeavor to clean up several of the entries I've had a hand in. I am grateful for the effort. However, I must ask you to refrain from deleting the "etystubs" from the entries lacking etymologies, as these serve a function. Refer to Category:Etymology stub. Thank you. --Bennmorland 01:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the notification. 24 01:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No problem. Talk to you later. --Bennmorland 01:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um, and Pronunciation, tooEdit

The same goes for pronunciation stubs. See Category:Pronunciation stub for what is now a fledgling effort. Feel free to help, though! --Bennmorland 02:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I really don't mean to seem too abrasive here, but can you please reverse the editorial action you took on so many entries, by place {{etystub}} and {{pronstub}} under the respective Etymology and Pronunciation sections? It will save me a lot of time and no little amount of aggro. Thanks. --Bennmorland 02:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay. 24 19:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. You've been a real gentleman (lady?) about this mix-up. Much appreciated. -- Bennmorland 07:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:) 24 18:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ComplicationsEdit

<Jun-Dai 19:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)>

Thanks for that. You are right, it does make things more complicated. But I did it out of frustration. I think that it is valuable, because it allows a user to view/add words of one type without having to see or load the page for the other, while still updating the main page for anyone that wants to see both. I don't intend to use the romaji section much, though I feel that it should be there. If people actually start putting more articles into the page, it would have become unmanageable before long. I'll be adding articles to the non-romaji section.

</Jun-Dai> Good idea then, though a note about how to edit the templates might be of merit. 24 19:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary - you can edit the sections directly off of the main page. That is to say, it isn't really using templates, it's using the same thing that the w:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates uses. Jun-Dai 19:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


ProblemsEdit

On List of Spanish verbs you deleted a section while I find nothing that states a copyright enfringment. Please check your stuff before deleting. K-unit 22:20, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hi K-unit, thanks for the reminder. I'm pretty sure that that was a copyright infringement, but it looks like it's been replaced now, so it doesn't matter. 24 18:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


User talk:24/Monobook.jsEdit

I just noticed your javascript - did you have success with it? I've had similar ideas about semi-automation of various edits by javascript. — Hippietrail 15:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. :) By the way, you might want to comment at User talk:24 instead of here. 24 15:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Deletion of user:24Edit

Changing your name from "User:24" to "User:24/24" won't work. Using a diagonal stroke in the user name means that you are creating a sub-page of your regular user page. Eclecticology 16:51, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was trying to do. 24 01:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:ChemistryEdit

Hello again,

What are you doing to the specific templates, such as {{chemistry}}?

--Connel MacKenzie 23:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Templates are harder to work with since they can not be editable for more "special" needs. Using a template on another template is pretty useless, if you ask me: not only does it put more strain on the servers (source: Jamesday), but it also complicates the process of editing the templates in question. A subst: is more useful. 24 23:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was some consensus a while back to use the specialty-specific templates? And why are you undoing other's efforts unilaterally? --Connel MacKenzie 23:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not undoing it, I'm improving upon their ideas. 24 23:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the complaint about cascading templates. However, eliminating the link to the template is wrong. Using subst: within a template I can see and agree with (but dmh, apparently does not.) But either way, I think some discussion would help, rather than being bold right off the bat. --Connel MacKenzie 23:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I've asked at the beer parlour. 24 23:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks and a belated welcomeEdit

24, Thanks for keeping after me today. I certainly miss stuff sometimes in my efforts (chronically scatterbrained, underneath it all), and I'm always glad to see someone looking out for the details.

Come visit us in Wiktionary IRC now and then, if you like. If you don't mind destroying a bit of the enigma, we would like to get to know you better. (I believe the phrase "different drummer" came up recently. :-) ) We just might learn something from each other. Otherwise, thanks for your contributions, and for proving wrong those of us (ahem!) who panicked when you first began. As you may have noticed by now, entirely too much of the iffy stuff that pops up here turns out to be junk, so it is refreshing to be proven wrong in that regard. Take care! --Dvortygirl 00:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Opening my talk page and finding something pleasent is a nice surprise.
I'll consider your suggestion about #wiktionary, though I'm afraid I'm not very good at real-time chat. 24 01:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me clean up after the vandal today. The page move stuff is a relatively new tactic and a little delicate to undo, so it's still taking me awhile to get right. Oh, and as far as chat goes, come visit, anyway. We'd welcome your company, "good" at it or not. --Dvortygirl 21:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let's just hope we don't get a more skillful vandal like Willy on Wheels here, or someone like him. At two wikis I'm a sysop at, a vandal calling himself "Ph34r" moved ~100 pages in 4 minutes. :/
I'll consider it. :) 24 21:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandal rollbacksEdit

I was doing that experiment earlier as part of a conversation on IRC. Uncle G's suggestion(s) were fine for Wiki 1.4 but don't seem very appropriate anymore. Move rollbacks increased a whole bunch last night (WikiNews in particular) so the un-moving tools have improved drastically as a result, in the past few hours. I guess I'll see how they work tonight.

Thanks for your other clues, though I'm still not sure of anything worthwhile I can do with that information. --Connel MacKenzie 27 June 2005 20:26 (UTC)


Decapitalization: please waitEdit

24, could you please hold off moving pages around for a bit until we figure out what's going on? Brion Vibber is trying to create a server-side automation to help us out. It is best to wait until we know more, I think. I will try to see that specific instructions for page moving and cleanup get posted to the Beer Parlour and site notice (above) when we are more secure with this move. Meanwhile, please take the evening off and relax. Many thanks. --Dvortygirl 30 June 2005 00:17 (UTC)

Okay. 24 30 June 2005 00:18 (UTC)
Thanks. Best to hold off completely, I think. If you're looking for something to do, please join us in IRC about now and help us sort this mess out. --Dvortygirl 30 June 2005 00:24 (UTC)
Okay. 24 30 June 2005 00:26 (UTC)

An obvious question arisesEdit

User talk:24/sandbox - Why? You slowed the server (temporarily) and the only thing you effectively flooded was the IRC:RC channel. --Wytukaze 4 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)

Uh, oops. 24 4 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)
Hah, nice answer. Care to explain a little more? --Wytukaze 4 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)
No, I can't. Sorry. :/ 24 4 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)
Not even a little bit more? Like why you wanted to flood history? I'm genuinely curious, and you don't seem to have damaged anything, which is always nice :P. --Wytukaze 4 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)
Blueberries. 24 4 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)
Thankyou. --Wytukaze 4 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

RedirectsEdit

Most of the redirects that I have been deleting arise from the capitalization changeover. Which ones or how many do have interwiki links or outside links? Where applicable changing those links would make more sense than keeping a huge number of useless redirects. Eclecticology July 4, 2005 21:12 (UTC)

Alisha, Alesha, AliciaEdit

I don't suppose you're going to explain this one, either, are you? (Let me guess...blueberries?) --Dvortygirl 20:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Your guess is dead on. 24 20:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

enigma

NounEdit

  1. 24
  2. blueberries

Ah, well. I had to ask. :) --Dvortygirl 20:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

HiEdit

Hi. What I meant by peoples nouns, is proper nouns such as the English people, the American people, etc. I'm just trying to classify the categories in the Serbian and Bosnian languages. Do you think I should just keep it in the proper nouns category? --Dijan 02:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

HolaEdit

Tong pi infers to a desire for a child or child-like innocence. I don't know exactly how to translate it. Blastu 20:49 UTC