User talk:Mozzerati

This page has been blanked; for old comments please see

before 21:06, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mozzerati&oldid=10264322)

Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 7

Your comments were added to the archive not to the main talk page Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II. Perhapse you would like to move them. Philip Baird Shearer 09:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dresden

Hi Mozzerati, regarding the Bombing of Dresden in World War II, a couple of questions. I think I like your new way of doing footnotes but: first, it makes the Notes section very long, and second, when inline links are given, the reader only has to click once to be taken to the article quoted from or referred to, but now they have to click twice: once to go to the Notes section, then again to go to the article.

I will try to work on reducing the notes section a bit. There are some very close by notes that might be mergable. As far as the two clicks goes, I personally think that it's more important to be sure they know where they are going. Often the web link will disappear, but the reference is still valid. I think that on the grounds of "..not a web directory.." that's reasonably justified.

Sorry, I don't follow that point. If the link disappears, it will have disappeared regardless of where we cite it. Or did I misunderstand you? Also, please don't merge any references. I'm not sure what you mean here. We need more inline references in this article, not fewer. SlimVirgin 23:01, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

If you have a citation http://example.com/aske3k4539/sdf/sdfs/454/xkke.html and the file gets moved, you'll never know what it was. If you have instead a reference with Title, Author, date etc. you can probably find the same citation again (I do this quite often to fix links). If it gets removed, you'll still be able to look on archive.org and know whether or not you found the correct page. In the end, you can even contact the author and ask if they still have a copy. It's better IMHO.

As far as merging goes, I see places (such as footnotes 3&4) where there are two references to the same page on the same book within a couple of lines. I think they could reasonably be replaced by one reference there covering both quotes. Since you ask, I'll leave it for now. Mozzerati 23:15, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean simply that if the link is no longer valid, there will still be a description of what it used to link to? Yes, I agree, but that's achieved with a standard References section, where each reference is described. This article didn't have one, because for some reason the other editors haven't done things that way, but I was about to create one. So the one click/two clicks argument still stands. I do think readers will get a bit fed up having to click, then peer to check the number, then click again. However, my main concern is the length. This article isn't particularly well referenced. For a well-referenced article, the notes section will look very long indeed. Not that I'm saying I don't like this way of doing it, because it does makes sense, but I see the length as a potential objection from others. SlimVirgin 23:06, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

On most modern browsers, the target number should be highlighted immediately, so it shouldn't be so difficult to find which one. (BTW; could you make some of these comments on the Wikipedia:Footnote3 talk page and also at Wikipedia talk:Cite sources). The article is already too long (53k?) so it should be split in two or cut down anyway.. Personally I think the legal stuff has to be broken out to a separate page. Mozzerati 23:15, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

I agree about the legal stuff. Actually, I don't think it should be anywhere, as it's original research and amounts to a personal essay. But if it has to be somewhere, it should be in another article: perhaps one entitled "Dresden: a personal essay." ;-) Go ahead and merge any references that are repeated within a couple of lines of one another: there's no harm in doing that. By the way, even though I'm coming here with critical points, I applaud your efforts to help and encourage editors to cite their sources properly. SlimVirgin 03:41, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I was wondering why you removed the NPOV tag. Best, SlimVirgin 22:44, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag I removed simply because the other editor I had an edit clash with removed it. I tried to restore all of the edit I felt I could. Please feel free to put the tag back. I even think that's more likely correct. Mozzerati 22:54, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

Regarding a list of discussions...

My bot is running now, and if the Wikipedia doesn't have any problems, then you may check: User:AllyUnion/VFD List for a list of newly added VFD discussions. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes

As requested, I've added a screenshot. -- Samuel Wantman 20:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No change. Check out the discussion with CategoryTOC about browser differences. There might be something about it there. -- Samuel Wantman 02:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

bot is great but...

Just one more feature :-) Would it be possible that the bot could put in an edit coment which contains as many as possible of the VFD titles that have been added. Thus, for this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AAllyUnion%2FVFD_List&diff=0&oldid=10622811) the title would be VFD hourly update: Corby Ziesman / Nutrinopets. Obviously sometimes the list could be too long for the edit comment, but it will still be useful. You might then say VFD hourly update (many): Corby Ziesman / Nutrinopets / Blah /BlahBlah / (and others). I'd code it myself, but I'm a Python luddite :-) Mozzerati 21:53, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

It's a goddamn hack. Hell, do you know I actually tell Perl to do a find and replace for me? I know that Python could do it for me by compiling the damn regexs, but it's the same thing as writing it into a log. What you're asking me to do is what, write the old section into a log, write the new parsed section into a log, call a UNIX diff, then parse the input to get rid of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/, then insert it into the comment. I don't know what the limit is for the comment text, so I don't know the cut off point. I'd be happy to add your feature if you could write it in either pseudocode, Perl or C++, and under the assumption that you have access to the new section and the old section. Oh, also, you'll need to consider what to do when it attempts to process the addition of a new day and removal of the old day.

At the current moment, it does this: Gets sections 1-6. If the hour is between 00:00 UTC and 01:00 UTC, then write sections 2-5, get the previous day's section, translate it, get today's section, translate it, and post sections 2-5 plus previous day's section translation, and today's section translation. If the hour is not between 00:00 UTC and 01:00 UTC, then get sections 1-6, replace section 7 with today's section translation. Once completed, post new page to VFD. Anything different from the previous page causes the page to change. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is not pseudocode!

diff -u /tmp/b /tmp/a | 
  perl -ne 'm:^\+\* \[\[[^/]*/([a-z0-9. ]{2,10}):i && print "$1 / ";' | 
  head -c 40

I have tested it on two versions cut and paste from the edit window. If you want to do it all in perl then the Diff module should help I can try that later. The 40 is just a demonstration.. in real life you would append it all to a variable after the initial comment and then truncate that variable to the maximum comment length. Mozzerati 22:52, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

I found this command to be more useful:

 diff -u ~/tmp/diff-vfd.log ~/tmp/vfd.log | 
 grep ^+ | 
 grep '* \[\[' | 
 perl -pi -e 's/\*.\[\[Wikipedia:Votes.for.deletion\// /g' | 
 perl -pi -e 's/\]\]//g'

-- AllyUnion (talk) 10:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your requested feature has been implemented. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Footnote bot

After pondering over your initial request, a bot in this case would only be useful for correcting pages. Additionally, I hate the idea for the bot to actually be actively running through all pages using the template. See my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Bots. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biweekly special article

Dear Fact and Reference Check member,

After many months, the biweekly special article has been brought back! The article we will be referencing is Titan (moon). Please do your best to help out!

I'm asking all members to verify at least three facts in the article, and I'd really appreciate it if you could try and help with this. We have about 19 members, so if even 3/4 of us try and fulfil this 'dream', that'll be 45 references!

If you need some information on how to use footnotes, take a look at Wikipedia:Footnote3, which has a method of autonumbering footnotes. Unfortunately, they produce brackets around the footnotes, but it seems to be our best alternative until they integrate the footnote feature request code (http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192) into MediaWiki. You may be interested in voting for the aforementioned feature request.

Cheers,

Frazzydee|✍ 20:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ref and Note

A note for you here. Actually, it's short enough, I'll just paste it:

Indeed, I actually prefer note. I think I used endnote only because note was already taken. --P3d0 15:01, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Law_connections

Go for it. I never got around to finishing the ambitious project. Ctrl build^talk Missing image
Columbia_SEAS.GIF

15:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PSW FAC

Long time not heard :) Replied on FAC page. In addition, regarding Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Polish-Soviet_War, the bottom line is that I am out of ideas what can be cut out without damaging the article. As a creator (agreed, biased), I feel that all remaining info is essential. Please tell me EXACTLY what sections/parts/etc. you find unimportant enough to be moved to a subarticle? Preferably on FAC page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article has been reduced to 44kb. Would you support it now? Honestly, there is *nothing* left I can cut out anymore... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goa

Thanks for updating the footnotes and reference style in the Goa article. I'll keep this in mind when I write my next FA. But what do you mean by Verified 2005-04-01? PS. While writing dates please spell the month out to disamb between mm/dd and dd/mm. =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 17:51, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Are you incharge of verifying references? If so I'll pass on my FA to be certified by you. :). In India the dd/mm/yyyy is common. You may prefer to use the ISO format, but after reading [Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)], you should wikify the links as those reading the page might not be aware of the ISO format. I've updated the Goa dates. =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 18:37, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad

I've gone through the article on a first pass to connect the facts to the references via footnotes like you suggested. Please take a moment to review the changes. AdThanksVance. slambo 22:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I finally had a chance to add information from the two articles you cited in the FAC comments page. Like I mentioned there, it could still be improved, but I'm a bit short on time this week. slambo 11:07, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

help?

I'm one of the editors for the libertarianism article. I've only been with Wikipedia for a few weeks, but it's been my goal to make the article a Featured Article. I noticed that you sometimes help people with the formatting of references, and I was hoping you could help me, since I'm not all that familiar with wiki markup and you could probably do it several times faster with a fraction of the mistakes. If you could help me fix up the references (or even give me some advice) that would be tremendously helpful.

If you see anything else on the page that you think could be improved, I'd appreciate that, too.

Thanks in advance, Dave (talk) 19:52, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot! I'm going to find an appropriate barnstar for you. Should I merge the "references" section with the "notes" section? Dave (talk) 21:48, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to get the formatting right, but you're welcome to reformat it and put this on your user page. Thanks again!

Moving your footnote post

Hi, Mozzerati. Yesterday I posted a direct reply to Raul's post—"Raul's take"—on the footnote discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. I noticed that you've inserted another reply to Raul, between his post and mine, and I hope you don't mind that I've switched our posts back to chronological order! Mine seems (to me) like more of a direct reply to Raul, with many quotes from him, which lose their pertinence if they're cut lose from the original context. Also, people are always complaining about how difficult it becomes to follow a page if posts are interlined without regard for chronology. I'm sorry mine was so long, but that's what it took to set out a streamlined (and actually academically widely used) system that I hope people will see the virtues of. I very much hope that you don't mind my rearrangement, I certainly don't want to annoy or inconvenience you. --Bishonen|Talk 11:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Less clear IMHO, but, as long as the information is all there I'm pretty relaxed about it. I wonder if we can't fix up a system which uses CSS to switch between your system, little inline note symbols (⁰ maybe?) numbered footnotes and nothing. Personally I find your system reminds me too much of an academic journal and does interrupt the flow of my reading a bit. But not as much as reading garbage and not knowing where it comes from. Mozzerati 18:40, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Which of my systems, John Vanbrugh or The Country Wife? I was rather appalled at how cluttered The Country Wife came out, but there seemed no help for it. And indeed not one of the 14 FAC voters mentioned being bothered by the footnotes, I was starting to think they must have gone temporarily blind or something. Or else most people actually are able to sensibly disregard note numbers and not click on them, though I know I'm not. Being able to invisible the notes—that's what you're saying, right?— sounds good, although compulsive note junkies like me would most likely feel deprived of our fix if we turned on such a feature. Bishonen|Talk 20:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kalimpong

Hi, I've submitted Kalimpong to PR. I need my external links certified, and since there are three, I shouldn't take too much of your time. Three beacause most of the info is referenced from printed matter. Thanks. =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 20:10, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Refs for Palace of Westminster

I felt that the descriptions added beside the references constituted metadata, as it is for the use of editors, not of readers. Consequently, I hope you do not mind that I've made the descriptions parts of comments. -- Emsworth 15:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mn

I was looking into footnote templates for my User:CesarB/Special effects templates page (there are so many footnote templates!), and I hit the bug in your Template:mn you mentioned a while back on the Village pump when trying to add it to the list. Remembering the recently fixed problems in {{tl}} and {{doctl}}, I tried changing a couple of characters into entities and it worked.

I don't pretend to know why it didn't work (other than that the parser got completely confused), but at least now it works.

--cesarb 23:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, looks like someone else found out that nested brackets are problematic: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#messed up talk page. --cesarb 22:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Invisible referencing

Hi, Mozzerati. I was very interested to read your comments about references at the Palace of Westminster FAC nomination a while back. I would really appreciate it if you have the time to explain them a little more. When Emsworth said he disliked the clutter of footnotes, you responded:

a) I object^3, there is no request for footnotes, just for verifiability. There are many other suggestions, ranging from decent descriptions of the references (see Louis Riel) through invisible footnotes (facts from the article are listed at the bottom with page number and name of reference, references in as separate section) through HTML comments visible only to editors, name/test/page references as suggested in Wikipedia:Cite your sources and only finally ending at footnotes.

I usually write on rather obscure and/or academic subjects, that need plenty of referencing. Who doesn't dislike clutter, though? See The Country Wife for a recent example—I would much have preferred to be able to do without footnotes there. Usually I manage with inline references (see e. g. John Vanbrugh), but that can get cluttery too, and a truly invisible alternative would be neat. Though, IMO, it would only be acceptable if it's something that the non-editing reader can find! Do any of your suggestions yield such a thing? I understand the Louis Riel bit, but are you suggesting three further separate alternatives, or two? I know how to make comments visible only to editors, but I don't exactly approve of that for referencing, for my own use, as I think the reader, not just future editors, should have a realistic chance of evaluating my information. (The reader may be a specialist, for all we know, and that first step towards drawing him/her in to help with the article may never be taken if they can't access my references; and, well, I just think they have a right to access them.) Uh, what's the name/test/page thing (I can't find it in Wikipedia:Cite your sources)? Could you direct me to an example page that uses it? And one that has what you call "invisible footnotes"? Thanks!--Bishonen | talk 09:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Warren County Canal

Mozzerati,
I cited the sources for the differing numbers re the water consumption and size of the reservoir on the Warren County Canal, per your comment on its FAC nomination. PedanticallySpeaking 15:16, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Invisible footnote template

Innaresting! I'll definitely try out the Inote on the next cluttery page I write. Thanks very much.--Bishonen | talk 22:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Teletraffic GSM

Hello! I removed the 'speedy', not because the link on the VfD page was wrong, but because the VfD seems to be unclosed (and only has one vote). I may be wrong, but my thought was that – if the VfD has been concluded but not followed through – then it would be best to leave a note on the VfD page, or on the Admins' noticeboard. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Policy consensus

Hi there! I've closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Lists_of_schools. Please take a look at it and see if the conclusions are sound. Yours, R adiant _* 10:28, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Open cluster

Hi, just wanted to say thanks very much for your comments on the FAC nomination and the talk page, which have been very helpful and have led to a considerable improvement in the article, in my opinion. Thanks a lot! Worldtraveller 20:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Blitzkrieg

Tnx for the comments, sorry for the late reply - I was waiting for User:119 to reply, but he seems to have lost interest in this article. Could you carry out the changes you suggested (Spanish Civil War, communications section)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Re templates: Template:rf and Template:ent

Hi Mozzerati. I've finally replied to your question here about the templates Template:rf and Template:ent. I hope this is helpful. We can discuss further if you like. By the way I'm very committed to detailed referencing, (for example see "my" Attalus I and Demetrius of Pharos) and I want to congratulate you on all the hard and excellent work you've done on this issue. Paul August ☎ 18:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Teletraffic Engineering

Hi there! The discussion on 'using WP for student projects' seems to have run its course, so I have closed it and drawn conclusions. Could you please look over them and indicate on the talk page whether you agree? Thanks. R adiant _* 09:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

David Helvarg

I notice that your objection to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Helvarg still stands. Please could you indicate the statements in the article that still require sourcing? You could do this by pasting  in the appropriate places in the article. Thanks for your help. --Theo (Talk) 17:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The article has now failed FAC but I still seek your comments on how it may be improved. I made changes to address your hepful comment on the day that you posted it. I am disappointed that you were unable to revisit the article within the FAC period after making your objection. --Theo (Talk) 23:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your annotations. They were really helpful. I hope you like the changes that I made in an attept to address each of your comments. --Theo (Talk) 21:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Inote

I would certainly not mind a change to the inote template in the Senate article; also, I will indeed use the template in the future. -- Emsworth 22:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Migration

Can you please help me migrate Convention on Psychotropic Substances to a footnote system? After it's migrated, the broken links can probably be fixed fairly easily. I have no experience with PERL scripts. Thanks, Remember me 16:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Convention on Psychotropic Substances

The footnotes issue has been resolved. Please vote. Thanks, 205.217.105.2 23:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Mozzerati"