User talk:Rick Block

If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page (so the question and answer are together). I ALWAYS watch talk pages I've posted comments to for a while. If you leave me a message (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rick_Block&action=edit&section=new), I'll respond here unless you ask me not to.

Archive2005 - Archive2004

Contents

1 duplicate content in WP:TFD; Davenbelle 1.1 more duplicated content 2 Advantages... or abilites 3 Duplicate content 4 Disambiguation models 5 Dab style 6 Content labeling 7 Award 8 Colorado State Product 9 Duplication 10 Superscripts 11 How to duplicate 12 Browser 13 image alignment 14 subst: templates etc 15 Civility 16 Japanese city infobox 17 Admin question 18 Village pump 19 Re: lots of edits, not an admin 20 User:Rick Block/WP600 not admins 21 Re: Pro Bowl by year articles 22 Re:administratorship 23 The list 24 Adminship 25 Meta-templates 26 Admin notice 27 Admin 28 172.154.226.170 29 Admin 30 lots of edits, not an admin 31 Re: Lots of edits, not an admin 32 Admin list 33 Admin status 34 Admin list details 35 non-Admin list 36 Film Wars 37 Film Wars, Part II: 38 Help desk question 39 HD change 40 re: premature archive 41 Thank you

duplicate content in WP:TFD; Davenbelle

HI Rick, I saw a note of yours re dup posts; I, too, just posted a comment to wp:tfd and found that it had gone through twice. I hit save and got an hourglass and then a message saying that the server couldn't be contacted. I hit 'back' and got back to my edit window, checked the contents, and then hit save again. It would seem the db post did go through the first time, and had trouble returning the result. diffs: [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=12255589) && [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion&diff=next&oldid=12255589); note that the timestamp of the first one is off by a minute from that in the sig... Good luck, Davenbelle 15:30, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

more duplicated content

I've just noted a couple more incidents of duplicated content at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#duplicate content in articles Thryduulf 19:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advantages... or abilites

I have asked Pioneer-12 to participate in the conversion of the categories sections to an abilities format as well as develop the synergy section in the blue box at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes. This is just an experiment. Pioneer-12's Advantages... or abilites suggestion was actually pretty good. And, we need another editor or two to participate. -- John Gohde 04:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have fun on Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes. I wont be making any more edits anywhere on Wikipedia, since editing here is a total waste of my time; ban or no ban. The experiment was a total disaster. And, Pioneer-12 is either obnoxious or mentally dull, IMHO. Could be why I have better things to do with my time? What do I have to do to totally piss the AC off? Ah, I know. Never come back to Wikipedia! Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I have other options which are a lot better. Bye! -- John Gohde 00:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate content

Actually, I've had trouble with that page for a couple days. I think its amazing lenght might have something to do with it. I'm actually going to perform some archiving. Circeus 14:08, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I did, actually, but I though I had solved it by dropping the edit althogether (I don't remember which version had the wrong text, though. I couldn't notice the duplication on my next edit, because I have preview under the edit box.) Circeus 18:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Seemed like a good idea - particularly for pages with long introductions which function as operational lists. Dont see the harm in it, except maybe the whole header section would have been better. -SV|t 16:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation models

It would be wise to create a separate page for discussions about the disambiguation templates as User:Neonumbers proposed; whether it should be a subpage of Wikipedia:Disambiguation or, as you suggested, part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (how do you create a proposed style guideline?), or somewhere else (such as a WikiProject), I don't know (or I would have boldly created it myself). I'll put a note on Neonumbers's talk page too. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's good - I dunno where either - I'm tempted to shift towards a subpage of Wikipedia:Disambiguation but you reckon otherwise so I won't make the subpage yet. I can see where you're getting at with the style thing, by the way, so if you want to stick it at Wikipedia:Manual of Style I won't complain. (dropped note on Wahoofive's page too)User_talk:Neonumbers/Neonumbers 05:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Dab style

I've created a draft project at Wikipedia:Disambiguation/Style for comment. I'll announce it on Village Pump, but I'm directly notifying people who have commented lately. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Content labeling

Hi Rick. I appreciate that you want my opinion, but, as I said on Wikien-l (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/020359.html), I don't feel that this is an issue for the board, but one for the community to decide as long, as whatever is decided remains within the bounds of NPOV and the laws of Florida (or wherever the databases are). It's also interesting to note that when I went to Africa recently to talk about distributing Wikipedia there, no one was concerned about content labelling, and no one had ever heard of any perceived problems with the appropriateness of the content. I'm not aware of any schools blocking Wikipedia over this sort of thing. Angela. 21:33, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Award

Thanks for the award. I don't think I deserve it though. I hate to say this, but my images are actually not my best. They are my second- or third-rate ones. But fortunately, even those images are much better than what I see (or not see) on Wikipedia. Photojpn.org 01:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Colorado State Product

I got the information from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (www.bea.gov). I'll be more careful about citing my source next time. - Mu Cow

Duplication

I'm afraid that I can't remember the details of this. I usually check for duplication after an edit conflict or similar (and there have been a lot of failed edits recently, so I check after those too), but I obviously missed this one. Sorry that I can't help. I'll increase my vigilance, and next time I hit duplication I'll let you know the circumstances. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Right, it's just happened again, this time on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. I was adding a new category (so edit conflicts shouldn't happen, in principle), and my first attempt to save hit the screen saying something like "Your action couldn't be completed" etc. I returned to the edit screen, and called up a new copy of the page in case my edit had gone through anyway, but it hadn't — so I tried to save again. This time I got an edit conflict. I copied my text from the lower to the upper screen, and saved. Result: duplication.

A check of the History shows that there was no edit conflict, except with myself. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

No — I always just copy my own text from the lower box and add it to the main article in the upper box. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so the best thing to do in those circumstances is to copy the text from the lower box and replace the text in the upper box with it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Superscripts

Your question is no longer there after my long break, so I can't read it to answer it properly. The characters are stored in MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning, which can be edited by any admin (like myself). I can see that they're not encoded properly, which I assume is the problem. Just tell me what they should be, and I'll change them. -- 19:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. Sorry it took a month and a half to get that taken care of. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

How to duplicate

I recently edit conflicted myself again by hitting the save button and then the stop button. Then save again and got edit conflict cause the first time the save went through. Copy my stuff from bottom box to top box, and hit save again to test wether I would get a duplication and I did. I was expecting it because the diff the edit conflict shows mentions the whole article as stuff my edit didn't have and the actual diff on the section I was editing. Somehow the section I was editing got replaced by the article. That's why the section I was editing didn't get duplicated. Seems like a simple bug to fix if you know your code. I am talking about this [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Mathematics&diff=14209363&oldid=14209208) --MarSch 12:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Browser

I use the Galeon browser for Linux, which is essentially a variant of Firefox. —Mulad (talk) 04:39, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

No, my problem was that my browser was following the "width: 300px" property somewhat improperly, so that article text would print on top of the infobox, which renders wider than that. —Mulad (talk) 04:47, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you can do that if you wish. —Mulad (talk) 05:08, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yep, looks fine —Mulad (talk) 05:15, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I spend too much time on Wikipedia as it is—I don't need the pressure of being an admin ;-) —Mulad (talk) 05:32, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

image alignment

Hi - Do you enough about CSS to know whether the monobook skin can be fixed to avoid the issue raised here? You never commented about my response indicating it's not just a Gecko bug. I haven't tried Opera, but if it affects pretty much every layout engine except IE's it seems to me that wikipedia's default skin should avoid the issue. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:41, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

It's not easy. For instance, on the Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Star Wars case, the problem is that the text on the first line is avoiding the first float (the small edit link) only, not noticing the second float below. Adding a margin-top of 1em to the image would push it down enough to avoid the text; I don't know if it would be a solution in the general case, and might break the layout on other situations. Another possible trick in that case would be to remove that edit link from there (putting it at the end or to the side of the title).

There is another more destructive layout problem with floats I can't find a solution to; when you have a string of right-aligned images (which both are right floats and clear the right floats), followed by one or more sections, all the section [edit] links pile up just to the side of the last float. In this case at least, I know it's not a bug; the standard requires this behavior, since these links are also floats.

I had read some time ago a page somewhere saying the "text overwriten by floats" bug was a Gecko bug (unfortunately I can't find it again); the page said nothing of other rendering engines. Of course, if only IE doesn't show it, you have to wonder if it's really a bug instead of a specification misfeature...

--cesarb 16:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

subst: templates etc

Hi Rick. Thanks for the note – I understand now. However, I do like using {{tl}} because it also includes the link to the template, which I find very useful. However, I think it is important to only use it with subst:, so that the coding is easy and the server load is small. Cheers, smoddy 09:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Civility

I didn't intend my comments to be non-civil. Perhaps I'm being too forward with my opinions but I really do think Steinsky is attempting to speak for more than just himself, which is why I brought the discussion off my user talk page to WP:D. I don't understand how he can say they aren't needed when the assessment of need is one that is impossible to do without speaking on behalf of others. Honestly, my comments were not ones to rile up a fight or be uncivil... Cburnett 02:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Japanese city infobox

Somebody made an Infobox template for Japanese cities. I tried to use it for Nagahama, but it doesn't look right. Questions:

• How do you align it to the right?
• What should I do if I don't have some of the information the Infobox requires, such as the city tree/flower? I leave it blank and it looks like: {{{Tree}}} Photojpn.org 06:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right alignment should be specified in the template itself and seems to be, although I've seen it more often with a "style=float: right" parameter (as per Template:Japanese_todofuken) rather than an "align=right" parameter (but either should work). Is the alignment issue the stacking of the image and the table in Nagahama? If so, one fix is to put them both in a "div" block (<div> ... </div>), like the image and table in the Tokyo article. If there's going to be an image with each city, I think the image might as well be in the template itself (in the table) which would avoid the need for the div. Note that the "width" parameter for the div should be slightly larger than the max width of the image or table. I assume you added the table to Nagahama with a subst, so at this point the only fix for the missing parameters is to edit the table. When adding the table, if you specify the parameters by name (rather than positionally), a blank value can be used. For example,

{{subst:Japanese city| Name = Nagahama | JapaneseName = | Region = | Prefecture = | Area = | Population = | PopDate = | Density = | Mayor = | Tree = | Flower = | SymbolImage = | CityHallPostalCode = | CityHallAddress = | CityHallPhone = | CityHallLink = | Latitude = | Longitude = | CityMap = | Notes = | ExtraNotes = }}

expands as

Nagahama ()
Country	Japan
Region
Prefecture
Area	'km²
Population	' as of
Density
Mayor
City symbols	Tree
	Flower
[[Image:|150px]]
Nagahama City Hall
Address	〒
Phone
External link
Latitude & Longitude
[[Image:]]
Notes

-- Rick Block (talk) 13:40, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Admin question

Thanks for thinking of me on this. Do you know if there is a Wikipedia page that explains the duties of an admin? I'd like to find out what's required before I commit myself. Thanks! 23skidoo 02:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup. I'll give the information you gave me some thought. Cheers! 23skidoo 04:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Village pump

I've seen it. I don't think I have anything to apologize for — I unprotected a page that had been protected, ostensibly against vandalism, for over a week; normally vandalism protection should only last for at most a couple of days, because there's no need for lengthy discussion to resolve a dispute. At the same time, I'm not interested in defending my honor or whatever, so I thought it better simply not to get involved in that discussion.

The right thing for Redux to do would have been to bring this up with me personally, as Knowledge Seeker pointed out. That's why contacting the other party is the first step in resolving disputes. Then he could have figured out why there was a misunderstanding. Since then, we had a brief conversation on the article talk page and he didn't mention the issue at all. I won't presume to guess why, but for now I'm not interested in making this molehill any bigger. --Michael Snow 01:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rick. Thanks for your intererst. I've already left a message for Michael Snow in his talk page, hopefully sorting this misunderstanding with him once and for all. About the article itself, I do not consider the article being protected the solution to the problem. In fact, I find it regretable that we actually had to block the article in order to solve this issue, which I'll only consider solved when we get the anon to either start communicating and working with us or move on, and then finally unblock the article again. I only requested protection when it became clear that that person would not be reasoned with as long as he could continue to ravage the article as he sees fit. It was, in essence, a last resource. As for the topic at the VP, you pretty much summed it up in your comment in Michael's talk page. Although I was not exactly looking for any personal apologies, I wanted to bring up the issue that one particular Admin procedure had become somewhat automatic, and that is prone to cause problems. But some appear to have perceived it as an attack on the "Admin establishment", and, instead of discussing the issue, have decided to attack me. I was surprised to see this happen, especially since it was Admins doing it. I have always endeavored to mantain high ethical standards in my work in Wikipedia, and to have that questioned by people who are also supposed to be highly ethical simply because they didn't like what I was saying... it was discouraging. But hopefully this, like anything else, will pass. Thanks again for your interest. Regards, Redux 01:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: lots of edits, not an admin

I put the "*". I wouldn't mind being considered for adminship. Thanks. --FuriousFreddy 02:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Rick Block/WP600 not admins

Rick, I hope you don't mind this observation, but I think this list of yours is not a good idea. People chosen for adminship should be responsible editors who are able to collaborate with others, who have a fairly wide range of interests, and who make good contributions to the encyclopedia, post on talk pages, do a little janitorial work, etc. You seem to be judging by numbers of edits alone, which is often very misleading — single-issue editors who make lots of minor edits (e.g. adding categories) will often have enormous numbers of edits to their names, and yet will have no knowledge of the community, and no experience of adding substantive content. I've noticed on your list some names of people who would definitely not be good candidates (not by any standard). Can I ask you to reconsider the use of this list? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:17, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is a dup of a comment posted at User talk:Rick Block/WP600 not admins - conversation (including portions originally posted here) continues there. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:01, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's a bad idea. Quantity of edits does not indicate who would be a good administrator. At least one of your nominees is among the most biased editors I've run into, who seems to view the pages he has adopted as an ongoing debate, but one where he has the privilige of rewriting his opponent's position. When he gets mad, he will redirect the page to something nonsensical, or have a tantrum of revertions. He's been banned for violations of the revert rule. I'm sure there are others like it on the list. I wish you'd remove the list. We don't need to encourage them. Pollinator 00:32, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Pro Bowl by year articles

Alright, I'm game, since it's now official that my categories were whittled down to just AFC & NFC Pro Bowl players... so what do we do? -- FutureNJGov 11:08, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Re:administratorship

I was once nominated for administratorship and it seemed to cause a lot of controversy at the time. In fact, the person who nominated me withdrew his support for me. I don't want to go through all that again, so I wonder whether I should even bother starring my name. -- BRG 14:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to imply that I'd decline if nominated. I just wanted to point out to you that it caused some commotion a few months ago. I don't want to have to go through defending what I did again, but if you, based on what you've seen, still think I'm worthy of nominating, I'll star my name; I just wanted to let you know about the past mess. -- BRG 14:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

The list

Rick, thanks for your note. Actually, it was a bit of cooincidence. I first noticed your list, and wasn't keen on the idea of it, and then saw that there are two (not one) members of it I'm currently having a problem with, over the same issue, and directly connected to their high volume of edits. So yes, it has taught me to scrutinize very carefully people with unusually high edits. For example, there's a particular editor I can think of (I won't name him/her and haven't checked to see whether s/he's on your list) who has 6,000 edits, and who has also used a number of sockpuppets, one of which has 15,000 edits. The reason for the high volume is the minor nature of the edits and the fact that s/he won't discuss them with other editors, and in fact the use of sockpuppets is to avoid being questioned too much. So this person would clearly make a terrible admin, but the danger is, if the name is simply plucked from your list, voters may not realize this, may not check the contribs carefully, probably won't know about the sockpuppets. The same user could end up with more than one adminship!

I know another editor (again, I haven't checked your list for this name) with 8,000 edits, who never uses the preview button and who makes only minor edits, never marking them as such. His/her edits to a page often consist of moving an image, saving, moving it back again, saving, moving it again, saving, moving it back again. The user also has a sockpuppet with 3,000 edits.

This is why it's very important for editors only to nominate other editors when they are thoroughly familiar with their work. One of the best ways to judge who'll make a good admin is to look at three things: (1) the volume and quality of posts on the user's talk page: someone who gets very little mail may not be interacting properly; (2) that their posts are well-balanced between the main namespace, article talk, user talk, and Wikipedia pages; and (3) that they accurately describe their edits in edit summaries, which shows respect for other editors.

I appreciate you taking my concerns seriously, and I thank you for that, and for having added the disclaimer. I'd like to suggest a change to it, as follows:

DISCLAIMER: This list indicates large numbers of edits, which generally, although not necessarily,indicates a more than casual dedication to improving Wikipedia's content. However, a large number of edits may consist of mostly minor edits (whether marked as minor or not), like adding categories; may be of a single-issue nature; or may indicate a failure to use the preview button. Users on this list, including those indicating an interest, may or may not make suitable candidates for a nomination to become administrators. Nominators are advised to check the balance of a potential nominee's edits between the main namespace, article talk, user talk, and posts to policy and Wikipedia discussion pages, and also to check that the nominee describes his or her edits accurately in edit summaries. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:37, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the disclaimer, Rick, and for your note. About banning the types of editors I mentioned: as admins, we can't block editors who have made some useful contributions, even if many of their contribs are minor and pointless. It would have to go to the arbcom, and that's a lot of work. I'm not even sure this particular editor is doing it on purpose to build up the edit count. I think there are maybe problems in general with that person, and sometimes there are useful edits. As no actual harm has been done, I just keep an eye on it, and watch in case the behavior deteriorates. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi! I am still interested. Do not remove me from this list please. Maybe I will be candidating for an admin in July-October this year. - Darwinek 07:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Meta-templates

The fact that our main developer, Jamesday, says it's a good idea for technical reasons (and that ArbCom member David Gerard reasserts that), makes it a de facto guideline in my opinion. Radiant_>|< 13:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Admin notice

Thanks for the notice. I did decline nomination more than a year ago. I find myself busy enough as bureaucrat on Wiktionary (also Wikisource, but I haven't done much there in the last couple months). The one area where I would find being Wikipedia admin useful is in reviewing the history of deleted articles that have been Transwikied to Wiktionary. Consider me still undecided, which is a little more enthusiastic than outright decline. Eclecticology 20:28, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

Admin

Hi Rick Block,

Thanks for the offer but I think I'll defer for the time being. Maybe in six months or a year I'll toss my hat in the ring, though.

Best regards

Fg2 08:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

172.154.226.170

I've already blocked him -- already been warned at the other ip. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:07, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, I'm really only new at the whole admin thing. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Admin

Rick, thanks for the suggestion. I've added the "*" to the list. Should I add my name for consideration on Requests for adminship? Mark 11:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I think I'll take the latter route, like you say self-nomination could be interpreted as arrogance. Thanks again Mark 19:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm presently not much of a Wikipedia contributor - my present number of monthly contributions at the moment is negligible, and the great number of edits is just a remnant of the past. (Not to mention that given my recent conduct on Wikipedia, I have very little chance of becoming an admin.) Regardless, yours is a very nice initiative. — Itai (f&t) 07:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Lots of edits, not an admin

Thanks for telling about the initiative. I guess it would be best for other people to nominate me. Self-nomination is not quite good to me myself. :-D — Instantnood 10:42, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Admin list

Hey Rick. Thanks for letting me know about your list. As it is now, I'm on an indefinite wikibreak, ironically, mainly because of the whole admin thing & WP:RFA. It seems adminship has turned into a clique and a joke. It's pretty sad when an admin invites their friend(s) to Wikipedia from online forums to support them, and they manage to get them promoted three months later, despite very little contributions other than to talk. Your initiative is good and I hope it picks up momentum. Perhaps those who actually build the encyclopedia (instead of bickering about it) will get some overdue recognition. Good luck! --jag123 16:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Admin status

Hi,

Thanks for your suggestion. Yes, I've been around since somewhere in April 2001. For a few years I used to be quite active in English Wikipedia but now I'm rather short on free time and totally absorbed by Polish Wikipedia. All I do on a regular basis is inserting interwiki links and it would be very hard for me to fullfill administrative tasks properly. Anyhow I appreciate your invitation. I might apply for a admin status some time in future.

Regards,
Kpjas 21:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Admin list details

Hi Rick - thanks for the extra details; I'll wait and see if anyone thinks I'm worth nominating before I make my final decision - MPF 19:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

non-Admin list

I was wrong. It sounded like a bad idea to me - I figured that people knew where they stood and either wanted to be an admin, or didn't. It seems like people just needed a little prodding to say they were interested - and needed a forum to indicate interest. I think this diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FWillmcw&diff=15496614&oldid=15496455) says it all. Good job, and keep up the good work. Guettarda 20:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Film Wars

Hi,

Thanks for your Saturday note. I just finished writing a long response here, and when I tried to "Save Page" it after a "Show Preview, I kept getting this message that there was an "Edit Conflict", and the computer just wouldn't pass it through! For 30 minutes, I've been trying to get it to you, by hook or crook, and it just won't accept it. So - I will try to get back to you in a day or two, when the Wiki programming isn't sleeping one off, but this will let you know that I appreciated your writing me, and that I do want any assistance you care to give. Best, Rich Wannen 20 Jun 2005.

A bit of FYI/advice for edit conflicts. Usually when I get one on a talk page, I go back a page and copy what I was going to write. Then go back to the talk page (in viewing mode, not editing mode) and ensuring it's been refreshed, then I paste my text back into the box and submit it again.

An edit conflict is just what it sounds like: someone has edited the page since you started editing it. This is why I just copy what I had done, refresh the talk page, then edit again. Cburnett 02:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Film Wars, Part II:

Well, let me see if I can get the Wikiserver to cooperate now and transmit my complete message.

What I'm working on is reconciling the discrepancy between the default term & introductory article Film and appendices, accessible via the site Search field, and the default Category, Cinema, which is accessed through the Culture header at the top of the Wikipedia home page, which leads to a whole different starting point (a list of subcategories, which go to several levels of sub-sub categories, and a hodgepodge of articles, of which Film is just part of the alphabet soup). This, IMO, will end up with a single entry point, regardless of whether Culture or Search is used, and a far more simplified and better, more logically organized subcategory/article "Table of Contents" that the unwikified casual user or would-be contributor can use to find what he/she is looking for, or what needs adding or developing that he/she can contribute to. At this point, with two different starting points, and each with its own sets of secondary and tertiary links, going this way and that, and perhaps not linked to both "header" terms (Cinema defaults to Film in the Search field, even!), it's a big mess. That is an impression as a "newbie" but I think it is exceedingly pertinent, as the objective of Wikipedia seems to be to reach a larger audience, and if it is a pain in the ass to use, alot of newcomers will go elsewhere.

After the organization is complete, then I plan to look around for articles/topics that need to be corrected, expanded or added; but I just can't get a focus going with the clutter there.

So - your involvement on this project would certainly be more than welcome - there's an enormous amount of film/cinema/movie entries in here, and just getting the existing material organized is a big one - assuming you agree with me on my central premise, of course.

In that context, what I'd propose is - I'm presently looking at the attachment to the Film article which I've identified on the page, much to the annoyance of Mother Wantman, as Index of Film Topics instead of just List of movie-related topics. And what I'm doing is organizing it a bit, the objective being to be able to take an orderly look at the contents and see if they're duplicated elsewhere, and then decide how to eliminate the duplications.

Presently there is a section headed Terminology, on which I'm working; I'm down to H. I'm taking from each alphabetic section those terms which are *technical* terms and sticking them under Motion picture terminology, linked just below the Terminology heading (and which contains only a handful of terms on its own, making it a stub duplication of terminology with some different entries), and leaving behind the assortment of job titles, industry slang, organization/company names, proper names and other miscellanea that's just been stuffed in there and left. We can deal with the residue once the technical terms have been factored out and everything put into more readable column formats instead of strung across the page; if you'd care to start at Z and work your way up, we can meet in the middle somewhere in the next couple of days.

The thing I'd like to do after that, and you may want to do this instead, is look at the article Film and its section History of Film, and then look and the separate article History of Film and give me your thoughts whether these should be merged, or History of Film finalized as more of a Timeline of Film History, which someone seems to have started to do and then dropped the ball around the 1930s, leaving behind just flat text; and I have no opinion at the moment which way it should go, but I don't think having two different articles that simply describe the "history of film" makes much sense.

Or, maybe you have some ideas of your own, or want to explore the Category portion from Category:Cinema (which I can't seem to get to link up here, but as I said you find it under Culture on the home page), and see if there isn't a better organizational plan, something that would go to 2 levels at worst, instead of the maze of sub and sub-sub cellars that I keep running into there; and give me your thoughts, or take some action.

So, that is the kind of help I could use, and if you or others want to join in, great. Or if you want to work on it from a different perspective, that's fine too, let's just coordinate so we don't collide with each other.

Again, many thanks for your kind message and offer of help. Best wishes: Rich Wannen 6:45PM CST, 20 Jun 2005.

PS - Is it my imagination, or wasn't the tab title for these private message boards TALK just a little while ago; now the heading is DISCUSSION but I'd swear it wasn't that way when I first got here. - RW.

Help desk question

You see my Userpage? It has two meta tags (links that go to other wikimedia projects). They tend to stand in the way of the other sections. As I do that for other article pages too, the same thing happens, like Faith. --Admiral Roo 18:41, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

HD change

I copied the changes and the h2 headings from a page that was transcluded onto the reference desk. It seems that it's no problem in that case. Anyway, thanks for changing it, I'm inclined to change it to just bolding though, to keep it all above the TOC. - Mgm|^(talk) 04:54, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

re: premature archive

Hi - It's probably not worth undoing, but you archived some stuff from WP:VPT that was way more recent than the requisite 7 days. In particular, the exchange with Rich Wannen was most recently commented on less than 24 hours ago. I assume he's probably gone for good this time, but I would have preferred for him to have had a chance to see this comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&diff=15614174&oldid=15603900). In any event, please take more care next time (i.e. look at the newest comment, regardless of how old the thread is). BTW - I do appreciate that somebody finally got around to archiving. The page was definitely getting unwieldy. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

oops! I *knew* I'd end up making a mistake sooner or later! I've restored the current sections of the debate and left the rest archived. See what you think.

It was more due to the sheer volume that I slipped up. Now that the brunt of the work has been done it'll be easier to keep things archived, so fewer mistakes will (hopefully) be made. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 05:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

That was what I was looking for. --Admiral Roo 10:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)