User talk:Wikid77/Archive 5

This is Archive_5 for User_talk:Wikid77 (Jan 2010 - May 2010)

Morocco subpage[edit]

Hi Wikid, you might want to consider deleting the subpage User:Wikid77/Morocco if you've finished working on it. I see that the last edit was in July '08. Jay (talk) 10:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid, you might want to consider deleting the subpage if you've finished working on it. I see that the last edit was in October '09. Jay (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikid77/Morocco, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikid77/Morocco and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~. You are free to edit the content of User:Wikid77/Morocco during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jay (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry at Murder of Meredith Kercher[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for Abuse of multiple accounts. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Your usage of multiple accounts at Murder of Meredith Kercher has been confirmed by checkuser. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikid77. Use of more than one account on a controversial article may be assumed to be avoiding scrutiny, which is a violation of WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus in the SPI report, your IPBE permission has also been removed. If you need it again, ask at WP:AN or ask any admin. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd account was used to avoid slurs against the older account, slurs repeatedly logged into the edit-summary lines. An example of one slur against User:Wikid77 can be seen in edit-summary of diff:
Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher-diff4949.
The ease of embedding insults into edit-summaries is a loophole in WP's control of insulting behavior. Of course, many people just edit using IP addresses to avoid Wikipedia's insulted-username problems. However, I wanted to be able to discuss some issues between named-user talk-pages (not a floating IP address) without exposing the older username to repeated insults. Plus, ironically, I did not want to involve arbitration, but rather, just request people to stop the insults, by making talk-page requests with a new username they could continue to insult. I have been working on some massively important pages, such as re-designing Template:Convert to not need 2,700 subtemplates, and I didn't need the insults to "Wikid77" to taint progress on changing hundreds of templates used in over 200,000 (?) articles. I hope you understand that working on a controversial article exposes a username to harrassment that can affect work on templates used by thousands of articles: bold insults, can lead to wiki-stalking, then to IP-edit tampering of templates being updated. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wikid77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was in the process of phasing out use of the older account with that article. The 2nd account was used to avoid slurs against the older account, slurs repeatedly logged into the edit-summary lines. Plus, do you really imagine that a long-term pseudonym cannot be libeled? Do you think that saying that a particular username has a pattern of slanting some articles is not libelous when it is untrue? In many places in the world, a person's name is only as temporary as having it changed in the official records. If I were to claim outrageous insults to a living "Mark Twain" (aka Samuel Clemens) do you really think, somehow, that would NOT be considered libel in a court of law? I request that you unblock this account soon. However, I understand that sometimes people fear dreadful problems that don't really exist. Also, I understand that there is limited time to fully analyze issues to determine the appropriate actions to take. Meanwhile, I will continue my edits offline, so this is not a traumatic delay to me. However, I am sorry that Wikipedia will not benefit from my help more directly. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You don't seem to fully understand why you have been blocked, and you are now making remarks that border on legal threats, so unblocking you does not seem a wise course of action at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wikid77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This 2nd request needs to be reviewed by someone with ample time to understand the situation, not by someone in a hurry to judge the request. I have been trying to work on controversial articles without tainting my older username, and now, the result is that both have been blocked. I see why many people just use IP addresses to avoid all this commotion: just edit controversial articles by IP and then insults or wiki-stalking will be reduced, so that articles developed by the older username will not be targeted. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You still don't understand why you've been blocked don't you? I suggest educating yourself first by reading WP:SOCK, WP:NLT, WP:GTAB. Please note that further abuse of this template will result in removal of your talk page access. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 11:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2010 delay to improvements in Template:Convert[edit]

02-Jan-10: I know I had "promised" many users that I would be reducing Template:Convert by nearly 2,400(?) fewer subtemplates, of the current 3,050 pages; however, I'm forbidden to work outside my talk-page during May 2010. Feel free to start reducing those highly complex templates without me, but remember they are a minefield of difficult issues (at least 13 sub-groups of conversion types). Also, many of the converted measurements displayed by Template:Convert are actually incorrect by 2-5% (another big embarrassment for Wikipedia), so please try to fix those while I am locked out during May. Also, don't worry about the embarrassment, we can always say the problems were known but it took the admins a while to help fix those measurement errors. And remember, Wikipedia is already a "joke website" to many people, so we will be making Wikipedia's bad reputation somewhat better just by correcting the misleading measurements this year. -Wikid77 (2 January 2010) 18 May 2010

Work on Kercher-Murder article[edit]

02-Jan-10: All of us who were banned wanted to keep improving that article "Murder of Meredith Kercher", so everyone else please keep adding the missing evidence about the murder case. At this point, since Wikipedia wants to avoid lawsuits or libelous phrases, I am thinking the article should state that there was no major evidence of a bisexual orgy involving Kercher or any of the living people (per WP:BLP), but rather, the notion of a sex game was primarily a prosecution theory. I don't think the article should imply that those people had a bizarre, wild sex event that might slur their names, since the evidence doesn't seem to indicate more than just typical boy-girl couples: I have not found any prior events of so-called Italian orgies. Nota bene: While Knox/Sollecito were convicted in Italy, the evidence would be denied in the U.S., and so I think the Italian slurs would be considered libel in the U.S. -Wikid77 22:12, 2 January 2010

Admins are not dense but no speaka da english[edit]

03-Jan-10: People might get frustrated when trying to discuss issues with the admins on the English Wikipedia. A major source of the trouble, rather than the perception that admins are too dim to follow logic, is the fact that many admins do not really speak English ("I can english, I can english don't you"). Hints of this problem can be seen in many user pages, where they claim "native speaker of English" but also show "level 19" fluency in Mondavian-jabberish or such. Hence, please do not blame those admins for not discussing issues with you, they mean no disrespect, as they can't fully understand anyone who is speaking English idioms in your culture. It is not their fault: there is no adequate wiki-test to ensure admins know the common English idioms. This situation is a form of systemic problem that permeates the entire Wikipedia environment, when trying to find long-term volunteers to perform the (boring) admin functions. The cause of the problem is the overall system about English literacy, not the individual people. -Wikid77 06:11, 3 January 2010

Why no anger about being banned[edit]

03-Jan-10: People might wonder why I am not upset about being sentenced to 1 month of wiki-jail for a crime I didn't commit. Well, there is an old song (in English) about unjust punishment: "The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia" (1973, 1981, 1992, 2002) with the lyric "that's the night that they hung an innocent man". The song contains at least 5 plot twists of people's mistaken ideas, leading to the final unjust conviction and revelation. The lyrics are written with many American gothic, Southern English idioms (the word "hung" is used for the proper term "hanged" or "supper's waitin' at home" etc.). Anyway, for 4 decades, that song has typified widespread feelings of unjust punishment in English-language cultures, as proven by the song having been re-recorded during those decades. So, being unjustly punished is a common occurrence in English-speaking cultures. Plus, considering that I've made over 2,000 major edits in the past 3 months, Wikipedia is actually suffering, vastly more than I am, while I am being thwarted from helping. It is just so pitiful, but there is an idiom for that as well: "shooting yourself in the foot". -Wikid77 06:11, 3 January 2010

Defacement of all year articles after 2012, please help[edit]

You appear to have defaced the page on 2015 with "The world ends in 2012 I AM GOD" [1]. It is strange, as your edits do not show up on the DIFF page [2]. Yet the defacement is not there after the previous edit, and IS there after your edit. Roidroid (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On further research it appears to be one of the template/infoboxes that is defaced, i am unsure who did this. Can you please help fix this i have no idea. Roidroid (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already reverted. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Andromeda-Galaxy-m31-stars-NASA.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Andromeda-Galaxy-m31-stars-NASA.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged that file for quick deletion because the free-alternative images make a non-free license unlikely. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship[edit]

I write because you participated in editing Teachable moment. In the months since I created this article, the topic has taken on an unanticipated personal relevance. I wonder if you might consider joining other co-mentors in a mentorship committee for me?

Perhaps you might consider taking a look at an old edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences? In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite this as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Please contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to check my schedule to see if I can help now, or perhaps I will have to wait until later weeks. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two rakan evoke a teachable moment, searching together for a focal point?

I would like the chance to establish a context which better informs your judgment? Please consider contacting me using Wikipedia's e-mail function; and opportunities for providing background information and answering questions can be developed.

You may find that what I'm asking for is probably less than you imagine in the short term, or perhaps more than you anticipate in the long term.. --Tenmei (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, your time and your consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How mentorship will work?[edit]

Wikid77 -- I wonder if the perspective of a systems analyst might help mitigate some of the inevitable lessons learned the hard way through trial and error? Does something spring to mind which is obvious to you but not to us? If not, good.

Roger Davies seeks more information from the mentors about how mentoring will work.

I hope these words will help "prime" the pump. I believe that what can be done in pre-planning has been accomplished. We will be figuring it out together as the future unfolds. A restatement is straightforward:

An initial editing strategy based on a theory of wiki-pacifism was suggested by the userpage of Leujohn in Hong Kong.
Fasten in Germany suggested that I tentatively adopt pacifist tactics as an experiment derived from salutary premises which I posted at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unanticipated Consequences, especially the words of a famous German:

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. — Albert Einstein

In the absence of any better alternative, I agreed; however, a willingness to experiment with a novel tactic represents only a superficial change. This is useful as an exploratory gambit, but not transformative. I am not persuaded that pacifist action is workable even in this experimental approach, but we'll see.

The Latin axiom qui tacet consentire videtur is mirrored in WP:Silence + WP:Consensus. In our wiki-context, I would like to find a way to construe pacifist non-confrontation ≠ WP:Silence. In resolving these seeming contradictions, the mentors' points-of-view are essential. Together we will discover otherwise unrecognized alternatives.

In the context of this specific issue, Xavexgoem has agreed to be a non-public mentor. "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty encompassed User talk:Xavexgoem/archive5#Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly. Xavexgoem's experience in mediation will help remedy an arguable deficit in the composition of our small group. Core policies are the tools at hand; and Xavexgoem agreed to help connect the dots in hopes that it could benefit more than me.

Does this help you make better guesses about how mentorship will work?

Does this suggest comments you might want to share? Observations? Questions? --Tenmei (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Sketch of Kercher Flat[edit]

I notice that the sketch you did of the Kercher flat was removed from the article on Murder of Meridith Kercher. That sketch was very good and added a lot to the article. Is there any way to restore that? Thanks. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid77, Thanks for including the new Kercher flat concept/diagram. It looks great and makes it easier for the reader to understand the story. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, yes, very welcome. I have, though, a slight problem with the text beneath it - please see its Talk. Rothorpe (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convert templates[edit]

Thanks for your work with {{convert}} and its many subtemplates. It's time someone took them in hand. I can't shake the feeling that it might be better to start from scratch and design a sensible, simpler and efficient template which does the job. No disrespect to Jimp, but they are a real handful, and I don't think having hundreds of subtemplates is the best route to go. What do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking it may be worth putting yourself up for Admin rights to make the work on convert a bit easier to do. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The major problem with Convert right now is that it is very difficult for people to figure out the internal code. I'd love to see someone try to create something from scratch that is as code-efficient as the current version. Wikid, I recall you were going to work on a guide for all the internal code parameters and such to make it easier for others to edit...is this still in the pipeline? — Huntster 01:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cite, removing authors[edit]

Per this edit[3], please do not remove authors that has already been carefully listed. If you think that the formatting should look better, add the display-authors= option to the {{Cite}} template ("display-authors: Truncate the list of authors at an arbitrary point with "et al". Still include the first 9 authors to allow metadata to be generated.") —Sladen (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convert templates[edit]

A big thank you for sorting out the miles/chains template, hopefully you should see the fruits of your efforts as part of a FA penciled in for June 2011. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hints for conversion factors[edit]

A couple of hints for doing conversion factors

1 pound (avoirdupois) ≡ 0.45359237 kg

1 yard ≡ 0.9144 m

those numbers are exact, as many significant digits as you like; that's how the pound and yard and related English units are defined, since the international agreement on a common definition back in 1959. Others include

1 liter ≡ 1 cubic decimeter (from 1901 to 1964, it was 1 L ≈ 1.000028 dm³, a measured relationship)

1 U.S. gallon ≡ 231 in³ (the inch, of course, is 1/36 yd, see above; use the current definition of the inch, 0.9144 m/36 is exactly 0.0254 m)

1 imperial gallon ≡ 4.54609 dm³ (for a while, Canada and the U.K. used slightly different definitions)

Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking News On Kercher Murder[edit]

Guede's cellmate has testified that Guede told him Knox and Sollecito were not at the murder but a second person was with him!!

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03/05/crimesider/entry6271397.shtml —Zlykinskyja 03:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a cite to an Italian newspaper in the footnote I added to the third paragraph of the article. Zlykinskyja 04:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC) _________________________[reply]

Wikid: there is a great deal of new information about the case in the news, including that there are three witnesses (cellmates) who can back up the claims of cellmate Mario Alessi that Guede has stated that Knox and Sollecito were not at murder scene. The Italians have just moved the three witnesses out of that prison into other prisons. The defense is now trying to interview the three witnesses. It has also been discussed that there was a drug user/addict who hung out at park near the cottage and was seen that night nearby. He had cuts on his hands and was trying to wash blood off of him in a fountain. The man seemed high or delirious saying something about a girl having just been killed. He was taken to the hospital but the cops never tested him for DNA. There is unidentified DNA in the murder scene bedroom. According to the book Monster of Florence, when a woman reporter printed the story of the drug user having blood all over him that night and cuts on his hands, she was intimidated by Mignini's men and then charges were filed against her or were threatened against her for obstructing justice for printing a "false story" in the press.

This story seems to have been buried after the newswoman was threatened. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4002791.ece

The inital reports of the crime were that Kercher was cut by a "boxcutter". Mario Alsessi is saying that Guede told him that his "friend" who actually killed Kercher cut her with an ivory handled boxcutter.

It is now reported that in 2007 and 2008 Guede told his birth father during intercepted and police-RECORDED phone calls that someone else was with him that night and that Knox and Sollecito were not there. This is also what Guede said in November of 2007 during a police monitored Skype conversation between Guede while in Germany and a friend in Italy (the friend had the police with him during the conversation, so they knew what Guede had said.) Some American lawyers are meeting with the prosecutors to resolve the concerns of a group called something like the Italian American Foundation.

Talk to you later. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Need admin for Convert[edit]

Hey Wikid, as I've said in the past, I'm always willing to commit changes if I'm around. If you foresee a very large number of change requests, perhaps that would be a good use for a new subpage...place all change requests in one spot rather than on the talk pages of individual subtemplates. It would certainly make it easier to watchlist and catch all the change requests at once rather than having to sort through the existing talk page and subpages. — Huntster 23:07, 5 March 2010

This might be a good idea for this template, but I think it is best, in general, to request updates by using the usual talk page. This is because other editors may be watching that page and they will miss the proposals if they go on a subpage. With this in mind I'm going to move your request on Template talk:CountryAbbr/updates and redirect it. Hope this is okay. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD notice about Delayed grief[edit]

An article you've created was proposed for deletion. You can find the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delayed grief.-The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xenobot/6.2[edit]

The above bot request is going to cut out a lot of the work you are putting into bypass CountryAbbr... So you might just want to hold off for now - and revert your removal of flags from subdivision_name... –xeno^talk 20:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment on Template talk:CountryAbbr#Confused? Thanks! –xeno^talk 13:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convert with mid-text[edit]

I'm really making hay of articles like CFPL Television Tower now that you have added mid-text capability. Just wanted you to know that your efforts are not being wasted. Have fun! Chris the speller (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may enjoy seeing how WikEd can implement convert template cases quickly and accurately; see User:Chris the speller/regular. With Wikid77 and WikEd, I'm having a wicked good time. Thanks again! Chris the speller (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retain (disambiguation)[edit]

Hello. I saw that you were involved in a fairly heated exchange about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designated and was wondering if you would add your support (hopefully) of keeping Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retain (disambiguation). Thanks. —Eekerz ^(t) 20:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

convert issues[edit]

I note there were several mismatches between expected and actual results. Nothing major and certainly not worse that it was before, but you should probably review. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC) -->[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all your difficult work with the many Convert templates Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable punishment of D*98[edit]

The January 2010 block against User:Darryl98 was extremely harsh, IMHO, as being a 1-month block for a WP:3RR violation that was escalated by a more-experienced user who was well aware of goading people into a revert-war. Perhaps an 8-day block would have been more fair, with an attempt to discuss the situation during those 8 days, and possibly remove the block sooner than 8 days, after true consensus (that means a mutual agreement). Please understand that Wikipedia policies are actually much more fair, in writing, than the way some users (and admin users) misapply those policies: the typical block for WP:3RR is only a 24-hour block, not 1 month. In fact, per WP:Blocking_policy, use of excessive blocking is a violation due to the reasoning that new users will become highly irritated by excessive punishment. The idea of fair punishment isn't just a matter of human decency, or common sense when trying to actually "collaborate" with other users, no, much more than those reasons, fair punishment is a stated policy issue. I think what needs to be added, to avoid excessive punishment, is to develop a type of "Code of Hammurabi" as a list of wiki-punishments for each situation, based on length of tenure, total edit-count, and repeat-offenses, so that the punishment does NOT just become a matter of "lengthen the block so a user won't come back soon to cause more trouble". Meanwhile, rather than reducing future conflicts, excessive punishment poisons the Internet community with unhappy users who spread the word of how they were mistreated. Typically, users will not see unfairness as a few admins crossing the line and violating policies in a harsh manner, instead, a user victim is likely to "blame Wikipedia" for being a "bad system" that harrasses and abuses people. What needs to be emphasized, in discussions during a shorter block, is that some (many?) users (admins) violate policies, but this is not condoned, it's just hard to enforce because a banned user can return using a social-networking site that has thousands of IP addresses and Wikipedia cannot easily stop them. Also, Wikipedia has very limited appeal processes, and so there is nothing, yet, as sophisticated as even the "American notion of justice" in Wikipedia: there are no trials by jury of informed peers (chosen at random). Instead, many issues are decided by "dog pile" groups, who collect around a common bias or mindset, as a sort of "feeding frenzy" or hive mind that sees a negative remark as a veiled attack against the hive, and many members of the hive must sink into "sting mode" to counter-attack a person who states angry remarks. Currently, Wikipedia likes people who are ultra-mild and don't claim any Bill of Rights but simply beg to belong with the others. Hence, people from democratic republics come to Wikipedia and might demand their rights under the law, without realizing it is the Law of the Old West: be as nice as possible to avoid getting shot by other users/admins who are toting wiki-guns. Only some people think users have any rights to fair treatment, despite current WP policies that even require actions to be fair within those regulations. Perhaps WP needs to teach "fairness classes" to users who come from fascist countries or domineering parents: being fair and courteous is not a strong force of nature, but rather must be taught to users. -Wikid77 02:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid, I'm sure that you are well aware of why WP cannot tolerate the improper use of WP:Sockpuppets. Just as your socking as Wz777 had to be stopped, so did PilgrimRose's socking as Darryl98. But blocks are not regarded as punishment, they are regarded as protection of WP from those who, like yourself, are having difficulty working within the rules. The indef block of a sockpuppet is applied equally to all such. LeadSongDog come howl 04:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read that user's larger prior talk-page revisions, you will see that the stated preference was to become named as "Darryl98" so I am respecting that request. In changing names, that user was not aware of how people can be goaded into a WP:3RR excess of revisions, and that escalation seemed to be the most serious of the policy violations. It is not a violation to have multiple usernames on Wikipedia. Plus, as an occasional user, it seemed that Darryl98 had spent extensive time to read the policies about WP:Sockpuppetry and properly explained each issue as it applied in the situation: no clear violation of puppets, but rather just being accused of "nefarious" intentions, which was noted as a violation of WP:AGF. Again, the largest disturbance was engaging in a WP:3RR violation, typically risking a 24-hour block, which I am not sure that user fully understood. The stated intent was a renaming as "Darryl98" and I think that should have been accepted, on good faith, then impose the WP:3RR (and possibly indef the older username). Anyway, as far as the concept of "difficulty working within the rules", we at Wikipedia have WP:IAR as a safety valve. By using WP:IAR, someone in a WP:BLP emergency could remove a whole section named "Lies often told by <living person>" that contained numerous unsourced negative remarks, using WP:IAR to defend a unilateral section-blanking hopefully later explained on a talk-page. You probably know by now that Bing.com creates long-term SEO subpages based on "==subheaders==" and hence, slurs in a subheader can go viral for weeks. It is always a judgment call as to when to invoke WP:IAR, but the main goal is to write the encyclopedia and guide users into consensus. We don't want angry users returning 2 months later, as a whole new identity, with the idea that WP is a ruthless group that must be fought because they don't follow many of their own "bad" policies. We need to discuss that the policies are very good but, sometimes, misapplied. Hence, there must be a balance, if the policy seems to indicate ban for 1 month, consider the extenuating circumstances and, perhaps, consider an 8-day ban with the understanding that the issues could be discussed from the usertalk-page during that period (perhaps with a Checkuser). We are trying to avoid 2 major problems: people returning with a negative attitude (perhaps a new id), and people leaving "forever" with plans to tell the world, with all the writing skills they have evidenced on WP. That's why we sometimes "ignore all rules" to see if we can restore relations with an insulted user, who wishes to change the username they have used among many people in their everyday community. With a name like "Pilgrim~" you should beware a powerful spirit: Plymouth Colony was the oldest, continuous colony in the U.S. mainland (they continued there after the First Thanksgiving from Jamestown, Virginia, which was later massacred by natives and eventually abandoned for a day). There's the old adage, "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword" but consider offering an olive branch instead. It is not a good idea to anger powerful people, we must seek consensus with them. -Wikid77 08:21, 4 January 2010
- Correct, usernames do not belong in section headers, as I've previously advised. However, if you or PR wish to change username there is a legitimate way to do so without creating a sock puppet. The above-board uses of sock puppets are deliberately very limited and in no case do they involve deception of other users. Once your brief block expires, you will of course be able to discuss proposed improvements to any policy on its associated talkpage. LeadSongDog come howl 16:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T.V. Documentary on Amanda Knox case, Sunday, March 28 at 8 & 11 pm, Eastern Time.[edit]

Hi Wikid, I just wanted to let you know that The Learning Channel will show a one hour T.V. documentary on the Amanda Knox case on Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 8 pm and 11 pm, Eastern Time. It is called "The Trials of Amanda Knox". I hope you get a chance to watch it. I am planning on it. Have a nice weekend. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Amanda Knox.jpg[edit]

A file... File:Amanda Knox.jpg, ...entry at the discussion --Averell 11:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Raffaele Sollecito 20090612.jpg[edit]

A file... File:Raffaele Sollecito 20090612.jpg, ...entry at the discussion.. --Averell 11:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Knox Sollecito trial end.jpg[edit]

A file... File:Knox Sollecito trial end.jpg, ...entry at the discussion.. --Averell 11:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please retract[edit]

Was it really necessary to follow up upon a thread that had been dormant for four years with this? Please consider courtesy blanking. Durova⁴¹² 19:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:No angry mastodons just madmen[edit]

Wikipedia:No angry mastodons just madmen, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No angry mastodons just madmen ... Thank you. <-Template:MFDWarning-> Durova⁴¹² 20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essay "importance"[edit]

Please don't change ratings of essays based on your personal feelings; if you would like to review and contribute to the discussion of how the project rates the essays, please see Wikipedia talk:ESSAY C/C#Proposal for Importance Grading. Thanks, –xeno^talk 14:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Raffaele Sollecito 20090612.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Raffaele Sollecito 20090612.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.... Averell 15:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore and see below. Sorry for the confusion, but obviously it's not disputed that the image is non-free, and I see you'll want to voice your disagreement. Thus I started a deletion discussion instead of this speedy deletion thing. Again, see below. Averell 16:11, 16 April 2010

Heroin layout[edit]

Hi, was just reading the Heroin article for some information on effects, and got a bit lost with the layout. I think closing the gaps was a good idea, but I'm not sure it helps readability with them in the box down the side, since it is so long (and ends up mixing up with trafficing etc.). Do you think it be possible to being the effects back inline with the text, but close the gaps by forcing the pictures to sit side by side rather than being stacked? (I'm not great at formating). Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed on 23 April. -Wikid77 11:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Amanda Knox court 16Jan09.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Amanda Knox court 16Jan09.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. <-Template:Db-repost-notice-> Quantpole (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That image was a new image, as a closeup, with new fair-use rationale. With images, care must be taken to try to understand the details as to how they are formed. -Wikid77 09:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Amanda_Knox_court_16Jan09.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Amanda_Knox_court_16Jan09.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?<-Template:Missing rationale-> Melesse (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not upload this image again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That image was a new image, as a closeup, with a complete, new fair-use rationale (check the history some day). With images, care must be taken to try to understand the details as to how they are formed. It is too easy to delete images if you don't know how they are prepared and stored. -Wikid77 09:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Pondemaat[edit]

Thanks for sorting out the addition of pondemaat to the template. It's now being used on some 7 articles, and will no doubt be added to more in future. I note Gene Nygaard was opposed to this addition. I've commented on the template talk page, and hopefully have demonstrated why the request was reasonable and within policy. Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AK wp1 16Jan2009.jpg[edit]

File:AK wp1 16Jan2009.jpg, which you uploaded, has been speedily deleted under point G4 of the speedy deletion criteria. Please stop uploading these pictures. The rationale you are using was clearly rejected and any images which reuse it are likely to be deleted forthwith. And no, you almost certainly won't be able to use a Reuters picture (see here, point 6). Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How fair-use images are justified[edit]

There have been several questions about using public photos in articles. Please read WP:FAIRUSE, and applicable copyright laws: the basic idea is that a fair-use display of a photo is contingent upon use in an educational manner, where the text provides "critical commentary" about that image (text in the article, not the image page). The restriction to have applicable commentary, in the article, prevents the use of images as mere decoration or advertising a set of products by posting all their images, without discussing each image. Again, the caption is a matter of copyright laws. Of course, from a practical standpoint, the goal is to avoid copyright problems, so if "everyone" is displaying the photo, it is highly unlikely to be an infrigement issue, such as with the iconic images of Knox & Sollecito. Nobody is going to sue Wikipedia over those basic images and rejecting them is just a waste of time. However, I understand, now, that many editors (and many admins) are unaware of the basic copyright laws. -Wikid77 10:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not one of law, but of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is the free, as in free content, encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We do allow non-free content under certain limited circumstances, but those circumstances are governed by policy and not law. The policy, plus some explanation, is at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Any non-free content that doesn't comply with policy as defined there is going to get deleted sooner or later. The answer here is not to find slightly different pictures and upload them with the same non-free content rationale as before. It's the rationale that is the key. What you need is a much better rationale. You could ask for help in crafting a suitable rationale at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Or ask an an editor who is experienced in this field to help: User:DCGeist, for example, may be able to help you with this. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature[edit]

contains neither a link to your userpage nor your talkpage, and should. pablo_hablo. 19:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this occurs because of Wikid77's proclivity to copy and paste his messages to-and-fro - probably from the rendered text rather than the wikitext. –xeno^talk 19:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid, however you may be posting to talk pages, please sign your posts to talk pages with four tildes (~~~~), or with a custom sig that links to your talk page, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing template[edit]

Please see Template talk:Track listing#Recent change: width for a discussion about an edit you made. The edit has been reverted, perhaps temporarily. Please tell us the reason for the change on that page. Thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if there's been a discussion about this elsewhere - but with the album track template is the agreed convention to put the song titles in inverted commas? It all seems a little too fussy to me... David T Tokyo (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scuse me for horning in with an answer, although I don't know why it was asked here instead of at Template talk:Track listing. The WP convention for song titles is to use double quotes, regardless of whether it's in the track listing template, or other chart form, or not in a chart at all. See WP:Manual of Style (titles). Double quotes are not the same as inverted commas; the latter should not be used, and I don't believe the tracklist template uses them (although I can't always tell, with my computer display). Or is it being changed? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC discussion involving WP:SYNTH[edit]

There is a discussion about the article North American Union concerning the rule on unpublished synthesis, which has been on rfc for nearly a week with no results. Given your discussion of that rule I was hoping you could offer an outside opinion on the issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make sure that you read what I posted re your remarks about WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV etc., as there is a basic pertinent aspect to this dispute you may not appreciate. The page, as it stands, has a history of the concept as per published sources. The editor above seeks to add his PERSONAL view of the history of the concept, one which no source has described, and which he readily admits is not in any published form. IOW, this is not an "alternate" view per se, it's the view of the particular editor. Canada Jack (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heliopolis[edit]

Dear Colleague kindly see Heliopolis page discussion.--Ashashyou (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Suspect in Kercher case[edit]

Hi Wikid: I wanted to alert you to a new development published in Italian media, but not yet in US media. I translated the stories myself, but only in a rudimentary fashion. As best as I could translate, here is the info: A witness has come forward stating that on the night of the murder his/her brother came home covered in blood. The brother stated that he had been caught by an English girl after he broke into her house to rob her. A fight ensued and he killed the girl. He encountered a black boy in the bathroom on the way out whom he knew. He told the black boy that he would kill his adopted mother/step mother if he told anyone that he had been in the house. This witness has given a deposition under oath. If this information is true, and not a lie by a vengeful sibling or someone mentally ill, then this is a major turn of events. It all seems to fit, in that Guede told his biological father that there was someone else there that night. It also matches perfecty with Guede's original story. The main question is whether there are any forensics to back this up. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Overlink crisis[edit]

We have discussed Wikipedia:Overlink crisis before. In my opinion as a developer, it is completely bogus on technical grounds. I have said this previously more than once, and tried removing the inaccurate parts of it multiple times, but you keep re-adding it without (IMO) actually addressing the facts I've presented. Since no one else has ever really edited the page much, I would suggest at this point that you move it to a user subpage, so that it's clear that it's only your opinion and others can judge it accordingly. I don't believe it should be in project space when it's disputed, and no one but you has actually indicated they agree with it or shown interest in maintaining it. Thanks. —Aryeh Gregor (talk • contribs) 20:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That essay, as typical, has already been tagged with:

"This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion."

I'm not sure why you object to informing readers that an article which contains 200 wikilinks, when expanded to have 8 bottom navboxes of 3,200 more wikilinks, will then contain 17x times as many wikilinks: 3400/200. Whereas if that same article just linked to 8 pages, it would avoid those 3,200 extra wikilinks. I have degrees in mathematics and computer science, and I have worked for years as a math tutor. What is your concern about avoiding 3400/200 = 17 times as many wikilinks? -Wikid77 (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to you saying that, as long as you don't claim or imply that it's a performance or resources problem. Your latest revision adds text like "Where, formerly, one disk drive could have held a set amount of page-link data, 800 disk drives will subsequently be needed", which suggests that a resource problem exists. It doesn't. I tried to remove these inaccurate statements before, but you keep readding them. —Aryeh Gregor (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you mean; I will remove those types of comments soon. -Wikid77 21:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder about editing comments besides your own at talk MoMK[edit]

As a long-term contributor you should know better about editing other editors posts and their opinions no matter if you think they're wrong besides removing clear BLP-vios, which this (the first one) clearly was not and the second one could be argued about. Pablo reversed one of your edits and I would've undone the other one you made to Z.'s post but considering your good standing with her, I'll leave it up to you and her (and won't interfere).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is so very ironic that The Magnificent Clean Keeper (TMCK) would criticize someone else for touching another editor's comments on a Talk page, when TMCK just repeatedly removed a ton of my comments from the same article Talk page over my repeated objections in violation of Talk page policy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Book[edit]

Hey Wikid. Feel free to edit my posts anytime. I just wanted you to know that there is a new book out that you will find useful. It is "Murder In Italy" by Candace Dempsey. I am finishing it now. It fills in a lot of missing pieces, such as that the coroner Dr Lalli and three other experts all concluded that they could not confirm that a sexual assault occurred, or that there was more than one attacker, or that the alleged knife was used to inflict those particular wounds. The author does a nice job of pulling all the info together. Check it out. While you are at the bookstore you should also pick up Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi. It is an excellent book and a real eye opener to the dysfunction in the Italian criminal justice sytem, including our own Mignini. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of All US Media Criticisms of the Case[edit]

I think this latests removal of all of the text that was in the media section about the criticisms by prominent US media types says clearly where this is headed. These editors clearly do not care about including both sides of the story, but only in wiping out whatever is in there now that does not damn K and S. I am disgusted and I am tired of wasting my time on this. Clearly, Wikipedia is broken when editors are free to ignore NPOV like that, even when it is an article about living persons. I think it is important for both of us to preserve copies of the entire article's "edit page" (having the text and references) as it exists now, so that we have documentation of what the article looked like before they whitewashed the article of the defense side of the story. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree your time is too valuable to grovel in this mire, and I know it's hard to believe there are many intelligent people who haven't quit yet, but check out the other articles, and you'll find some amazing pages. Meanwhile, the complete article version, with balanced media coverage, and Detailed forensics, is: [MoMK-Media-forensics]. The Bible warns, "Do not cast pearls before swine" as well as the adage, "Trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" (I don't mean to compare anyone to pigs, as an insult, because pigs are much smarter than that, and wouldn't waste time starting such psycho-games). This is the dreaded En-psycho-pedia with people who would rather be "right" than decent and proper. But, I still see how Wikipedia provides that grand experiment: the social litmus test which lets us know how Hitler, Mengele and Stalin did not invent atrocities: such cruelty comes in every generation, as we see here. We came to wonder could modern people really persecute innocent students (really?), and we found such baseless persecution proven, indeed, firsthand. Have no fear: God will get them: I have seen amazing revelations, and they have no idea the power they have betrayed. Someone said AK departed Seattle with hundreds of friends, and now she has thousands. So, we just move on to other efforts. Please don't give up on the other decent people here. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid, I just saw this new article by an FBI agent on the alleged bleaching at the cottage and Raffael's house. I thought you would be interested. http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI6.html Zlykinskyja 00:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: finally some progress is actually addressing new content for the MoMK page. -Wikid77 21:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards of this edit of yours[edit]

So you think pigs are smarter than editors at MoMK? And you don't think that as it as a personal attack to every editor over there? Is that so or did I get it somehow wrong? You know, you should cease your PA's if you want to be taken serious and not run into problems by yourself. As I mentioned before (here on your talkpage), you're here long enough to know better. If that reminder of mine isn't enough for you to change your aproach you just might end up where most editors do that don't care at all about wp:NPA and as it is not the first time you disobeyed that rule yourself while at the same time accusing others of doing so, you should think about it before running into unneeded trouble. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you have indeed misunderstood. If you have a hatred of pigs, I disagree. I think it is common knowledge that pigs are easier to train, for some tasks, than dogs, as pigs will learn patterns faster. Dogs are fast moving, and pigs tend to be less energetic, but they often have to carry more weight. Pigs are smart enough to survive in arid climates, by digging for food or water. Also, some pigs, who have a source of running water, will bathe in that water, rather than wallow in mud to get cool. When pigs do roll in mud, they use the extra coating to protect themselves from mosquitos or other insects. Plus, pigs are a source for stem cells, such as used in regenerative medicine. So, please don't think badly about pigs. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I really? Sure, pigs are smarter than dogs so by your response, you probably don't mind me and others to call you a pig from now on, right? The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond as I think that you think that being compared to a pig is more a compliment than an insult and I really need to know if you think that being called a pig (or smart pig?) is ok for you. Do I (and other editors) doing so in the future have your blessings. It's a real simple question and only requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer. No answer at all, I'll take as a "yes" after a reasonable time. Awaiting your response, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-->

May 2010[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Murder of Meredith Kercher. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough. Wikipedia is not a battleground. You have gone well beyond any acceptable editing norms. Referring to your opponents in a content dispute as swine is unacceptable regardless of how much you try to temper it - you should have retracted it the second another user complained about it. Ignoring any developing consensus that doesn't fit your own view is also not acceptable, and the pseudo-official warning was just one of an endless series of attempts to bully and intimidate the other participants into accepting your views. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To User:MLauba, you have been warned about your excessive use of blocking against other users, and so I ask you, now, to please remove this additional block, and the similar block against User:Zlykinskyja (for "edit-warring"), who has not even edited that article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" in the past 2 weeks, and only reverted re-factoring to the talk-page, as completely in line with talk-page standards for keeping posts in time-stamp order. In your description of the block against me, you recommend "first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus". However, I did exactly that, and not in a small way, but rather in 7 new talk-page topics to keep discussion moving in productive ways, using the following titles:

Consequently your statement, has been refuted 7 times, by those ongoing discussions when you claimed "first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus". I did discuss those, first, when restoring sections that had been deleted by users not following WP:CONSENSUS. I had previously posted the official notice:

Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Notice to investigate article for policy violations

So, I think it is quite clear that I have had every intention of following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. All the evidence has been clearly logged on that page, completely refuting your claims about my behavior. As far as the word "swine", I never used that word in the article talk-page, and never posted it as a personal attack against any users on their user-talk pages. I think you have this confused with messages posted (13 May 2010) by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper, addressed to me as "Would you like to be called a pig?" (in talk-page diff: [4]), using the word "pig" as a synonym for "swine" and in a manner that clearly seemed contemptuous, and hence, I was afraid to respond further to such baiting. So, please retract that false allegation, that I referred to my "opponents in a content dispute as swine". I did not, and that is the truth about those misunderstandings.
So, again as a courtesy, I give you the opportunity to remove these unfounded blocks against myself and User:Zlykinskyja. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good timing[edit]

Z, this escalation of trouble comes at a good time, because we had both pre-posted the evidence just prior (fortunately) to the blocks:

You clearly pinpointed the profanity, including date/time so that works, plus the exact phrases were stated (there are admin tools that can search through earlier revisions to spot where a phrase was added into a page).
I had not "erased" the ominous, threatening posts against my talk-page (as stating, "Would you like to be called a pig?" ), so my fear of responding there is obvious (hence, threats against 2 users).
I had pre-posted the "official announcement" to your talk-page, as corroboration of your intent to follow WP policies and guidelines, so it is not just "your word" against theirs. Instead, you are supported by my outlook, and by reminding you of progress in posting the officially-oriented text, as clearly documenting our observance of WP policies.
The official announcement was also pre-posted to Talk:MoMK (to the general user community), so it was clearly intended as an open reminder that policies should be observed, and it is the foundation needed by other admins to see, quite clearly, the intent was to enlist official support, not subvert policies.
Other admins are well aware of WP:harrassment issues directed against you (warned weeks ago).

In short, according to the "spirit of the law" we are both "not guilty" as proven by all the written evidence to refute claims to the contrary. Meanwhile, there is ample evidence for senior admins to launch an investigation.

Plus, our time is too valuable to keep editing without some assurance of stability, of how WP polices would actually be followed about the article content. Imagine how much worse, it could have become: if we had been lulled into a false sense of security, "Sure, come add sourced text from the new books, and we'll craft the better wording" –only to have all that hard work unilaterally axed ("Who cares about the interrogations"). At this point, with the official announcement, now feel free to email anyone about the situation, but only as you have time available, and at your choice, feeling free to ignore these recommendations from me. The current events have defined a pivotal moment IMHO, "set in stone" as to how Wikipedia can resolve WP:Harrassment and censorship of an article, based on all the proper groundwork to launch an official investigation. Thank you, for sacrificing the time to post your replies, with the crucial timing you chose. That was a brilliant response to the attacks. Now events can proceed more slowly, as an offline investigation, while actual reader interest in the article is waning quickly. Also, you are free to edit articles on the other-language Wikipedias. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The email format is: Special:EmailUser/Xxxx and connects from whatever email account is then set under "my preferences". The recent user-base data shows that the majority of users have not completed a college degree; perhaps many have no intention of getting a diploma, or learning more. Hence, many users might have no personal experience with highly educated people. There is only so much progress that can be made. Other websites, with a large number of readers, might have more interest in the actual details of the case. Again, many people see Wikipedia as a "joke" (and ironically, some users cannot understand jokes in discussions), so obviously, people with a low opinion of WP would get their information from other websites, never here. Hence, there is a limit to what can be placed on Wikipedia, without the help of those professionals. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some good faith advise that you probably won't take but I'm trying anyways. Since you just add on to your unfounded accusations and attacks to your fellow editors you really might want to consider those other "...websites" which "might have more interest in the actual details of the case." No one is holding you back in joining those forums (if you haven't done so yet) so go ahead and don't "worry" about WP as we'll be just fine w/o you. Yet as a long-term contributor here I don't think you (yourself) would be fine with that solution. Think about it before digging yourself deeper into your self-made hole. Don't think in mathematics, think in common sense. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. If I were you, I would be busy crafting some apologies, or pretending to talk politely, as a practice run. Several senior admins have been notified, and MLauba is already on shaky ground, so you might want to prepare an apology for what happens to MLauba, as well. I suppose you should thank God, for the role you have played in this grand production, but I am sorry for what might come next. Ironically, Z seems to have liked you, and wondered if there were, perhaps, too many cocktails at the keyboard. I just can't imagine people tormenting someone who has extensive legal experience: OMG, it's like teasing a dog with huge teeth!! Biting back, legally, is their instinctive nature! Consider the extensive facts that Z covered in instant replies, and imagine what will happen when talking, and documenting messages, with WP-legal personnel. The somewhat emotional Z, we occasionally saw, was only a weak moment in a formidable opponent. I suggest, imagine the worst: consider what you would like to accomplish before that happens. Perhaps create another WP username, which can rise from the ashes someday. This is a hideous mess: I was planning for us, with Z, to be translating major legal articles with German Wikipedia: such as some important legal cases in Austria, Switz., Germany (etc.) that should be known in the English WP. Instead, you have been driven into this bizarre use of profanity against a legal expert. If I can re-establish email contact with Z (closed the old email account), I will ask for leniency in your case. Sometimes, I feel that WP is a tool of the devil, making highly capable people turn it into a duelling Tower of Babel, of miscommunications. Did you not realize that Z was actually beginning to like you? God has chosen you as a Judas, allowed to betray your new friend, in ways you do not understand. I will pray for guidance, and perhaps you could do the same, and apply your clever means to reverse this curse set against you. Thank you for taking time to check with me, as I said, Z had only kind thoughts, and I hope we can diffuse this game of torment. I think Z would rather post on other websites, to make more progress, but legal experts often seem addicted to the fight, drawn towards conflicts, with an unstoppable will to prevail in the final judgment, taking the case to the highest court.... That's not me, so I'm just sitting here, stunned. Zum Gluck u. Wiedersehen. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only had to read your first 4 lines to see your continuous attempt of bullying, attacks and the usual. If you'd like me to insult in person do so at my talkpage if you have the guts, but stop hiding your insults to all editors who think different than you on your, Z.'s talkpage and in "so called essays" which are nothing more than another attempt of forum shopping and coatracking. Have a nice live R2-D2 (who even so fictional was way smarter than any pig and probably human, yet, he lacked some of the human parts in my opinion. But again, have a nice live and you won't bait me any further.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You sneaky changes of your comments are noted [5] [6].The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS 2: About your German: Nicht sehr zufriedendstellend wenn ich mal so sagen darf!The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collected data[edit]

The following are related pages:

Talk:W reply to 2wk block - [7]
MLauba excess: ??

Looking back on those entries, it seems such a huge waste of time. Wikipedia has numerous hollow articles, and the process for improving quality is totally awry. Quite simply: a process for "quality control" requires control, and that definitely seems lacking. It is no wonder that professionals tend to avoid Wikipedia, it supports too much chaos, as many experts had predicted years ago. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea. Try to check your above posts for mistakes.

Link # 5 is nothing more than a unfounded and hot air thread and personal attack to MLauba.

Link # 6 is just part of a thread that you're trying to turn against me by leaving out the context that was started by you, not by me or anybody else.

Link # 7, 8 and 9 are heading to a "Chinese?" page what makes me wonder how smart "you" really are compared to those you're trying to offend by comparing them to pigs and now in your thread above by other means. You can't stop, can't you? What are your standards compared to your and others intelligence? It's almost funny considering your posts.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some entries were disguised, to lessen the evidence, but there is no need to keep them here. Sorry. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...to lessen the evidence"? You mean to hide the non-existing "evidence", right?. Good night Sir, kid or whatever you are as I really don't know... The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posted circa 15-May-2010:

User:Wikid77 is currently in wiki-jail, for 2 weeks (til 28May10) for charges of abusive editing (restoring text deleted without consensus), intimidation by listing Wikipedia policies, and quoting a Bible verse.

What would Jesus Do?[edit]

The "Holy Bible" is the English-language name of the scriptures at the basis of Christianity.

Q. What did Jesus mean when he had said that people should not cast our PEARLS before SWINE?

A. That incident is in the Book of Matthew 7 verse 6:

" 'Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.' " (Matthew 7:6, NKJV)

The word "pearls" as used in the verse is a metaphor for godly wisdom and the kingdom of God. The Bible contains many metaphors, where the words used in the text should not be taken literally. For example, when the word "dog" is used, it doesn't always refer to a 4-legged canine animal. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing fractions in Template:Convert/Dual/LoffAmosDbSoff[edit]

For {Convert}, some ranges need to display fractions, by using {Convert/numdisp}, such as:

{{convert|2+98/99|x|4+7/8|ft|m|abbr=mos}} → 298⁄99 by 47⁄8 feet (0.91 m × 1.49 m)^*

Other subtemplates need fractions, as well. -Wikid77 13:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to help fix this? It looks like it just needs missing parentheses placed? For example, 291⁄2 by 231⁄2 inches (749 by 597 mm) is currently different from 291⁄2 by 231⁄2 inches (750 by 600 mm) and from ^{[convert: invalid number]}. I could probably unravel it, but you are more familiar with the inner workings of convert. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, parentheses are needed, to have the same results as +29.5 (as 749 mm):

{{convert|29+1/2|by|23+1/2|in|mm|0}} → 291⁄2 by 231⁄2 inches (749 by 597 mm)

{{convert|29.5 |by|23.5 |in|mm|0}} → 29.5 by 23.5 inches (749 by 597 mm)

{{convert|29+1/2|by|23+1/2|in|mm}} → 291⁄2 by 231⁄2 inches (750 by 600 mm)

Fortunately, the range-converter subtemplates use 2 common display subtemplates which can be changed, instead. Put parentheses in both:

Template:Convert/Dual/Loff & Template:Convert/Dual/Lon.

(Insert 2 pairs of parentheses "( )" around the use of {1} & {3}.)

Specifically, in Template:Convert/Dual/Loff, replace line 1 with the following copy/paste text:
{{convert/Dual/{{#ifexpr:0*{{{4}}}*0>0|s}}{{#ifexpr:2*{{{4}}}=0.5+{{{4}}}||p}}rnd|( {{{1}}} )|{{{2}}}|( {{{3}}} )|b=({{{4}}}*2-({{{4}}}))/{{{b}}}|j={{{j}}}|p={{#expr:2*{{{4}}}-({{{4}}})}}|s={{#expr:0*{{{4}}}*0}}|n={{{n}}}|l={{{l|{{{n}}}s}}}|h={{{h|{{{n}}}}}}|u={{{u}}}}}<noinclude>

Similarly, in Template:Convert/Dual/Lon, replace line 1 with the following copy/paste text:
{{convert/Dual/{{#ifexpr:0*{{{4}}}*0>0|s}}{{#ifexpr:2*{{{4}}}=0.5+{{{4}}}||p}}rnd|( {{{1}}} )|{{{2}}}|( {{{3}}} )|b=({{{4}}}*2-({{{4}}}))/{{{b}}}|j={{{j}}}|p={{#expr:2*{{{4}}}-({{{4}}})}}|s={{#expr:0*{{{4}}}*0}}|n=[[{{{t|{{{n}}}}}}|{{{n}}}]]|l=[[{{{t|{{{n}}}}}}|{{{l|{{{n}}}s}}}]]|h=[[{{{t|{{{n}}}}}}|{{{h|{{{n}}}}}}]]|u=[[{{{t|{{{n}}}}}}|{{{u}}}]]|N={{{n}}}|L={{{l|{{{n}}}s}}}|H={{{h|{{{n}}}}}}|U={{{u}}}}}<noinclude>
Changing those 2 should fix the similar range subtemplates:

Template:Convert/Dual/LoffAonDbSoff
Template:Convert/Dual/LoffAinDbSoff
Template:Convert/Dual/LoffAoutDbSoff
Template:Convert/Dual/LonAoffDbSoff
Template:Convert/Dual/LonAonDbSoff
Template:Convert/Dual/LonAinDbSoff (did not exist 22May10)
Template:Convert/Dual/LonAoutDbSoff (did not exist 22May10)

For example, the following should show similar results after the updates:

{{convert|29+1/2|by|23+1/2|in|mm|lk=on|0}} → 291⁄2 by 231⁄2 inches (749 by 597 mm)

{{convert|29.5 |by|23.5 |in|mm|lk=on|0}} → 29.5 by 23.5 inches (749 by 597 mm)

{{convert|29+1/2|by|23+1/2|in|mm|lk=on}} → 291⁄2 by 231⁄2 inches (750 by 600 mm)

I tested the proposed changes on Simple Wikipedia. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it, but something went wrong and I got a bunch of red error messages. For example, your comment rendered as

For {Convert}, some ranges need to display fractions, by using {Convert/numdisp}, such as: {{convert\|2+98/99\|x\|4+7/8\|ft\|m\|abbr=mos}} → 2+98/99 feet × 4+7/8 feet ({{rnd/bExpression error: Unexpected < operator\|Expression error: Unexpected < operator\|(Expression error: Unexpected < operator)\|Expression error: Unexpected < operator }} m × {{rnd/bExpression error: Unexpected < operator\|Expression error: Unexpected < operator\|(Expression error: Unexpected < operator)\|Expression error: Unexpected < operator }} m) Other subtemplates need fractions, as well. -Wikid77 13:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So, there is something going wrong with the rounding? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here are the diffs for the edits, [8] and [9]. Thanks again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need parentheses in {{Rnd/b1}}? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The parentheses must be inserted before reaching Rnd/b1, because of multiplication with conversion-factor {b}: somewhere, there must be ( {1} )*{b} and ( {3} )*{b} perhaps in Template:Convert/Dual/prnd & another subtemplate. I will debug Convert/round on Simple Wikipedia. See next topic. -Wikid77 17:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fix for fractions in Convert/Dual/prnd[edit]

For range-conversions with a rounding parameter ("|0"), the handling of fractions can be fixed by changing Template:Convert/Dual/prnd, to have parentheses around both {1} & {3}.

In Template:Convert/Dual/prnd, replace line 1 with the following copy/paste text:
{{convert/{{{2}}}|{{rnd|( {{{1}}} )*{{{b}}}|({{{p}}})}}|{{rnd|( {{{3}}} )*{{{b}}}|({{{p}}})}}|u={{{u}}}|n={{{n}}}|l={{{l}}}|h={{{h}}}|U={{{U|{{{u}}}}}}|N={{{N|{{{n}}}}}}|L={{{L|{{{l}}}}}}|H={{{H|{{{h}}}}}}|k={{{k}}}}}<noinclude>

The following should show 749 mm (or 750) after the updates:

{{convert|29+1/2|by|23+1/2|in|mm|lk=on|0}} → 291⁄2 by 231⁄2 inches (749 by 597 mm)

{{convert|29.5 |by|23.5 |in|mm|lk=on|0}} → 29.5 by 23.5 inches (749 by 597 mm)

{{convert|29+1/2|by|23+1/2|in|mm|lk=on}} → 291⁄2 by 231⁄2 inches (750 by 600 mm)

Uneven fractions should also work ok, such as 2+98/99 ft as 0.91 m in both:

{{convert|2+98/99|x|4+7/8|ft|m|abbr=mos}} → 298⁄99 by 47⁄8 feet (0.91 m × 1.49 m)^*

{{convert|2+98/99|x|4+7/8|ft|m|abbr=mos|2}} → 298⁄99 by 47⁄8 feet (0.91 m × 1.49 m)^*

Only ranges with a rounding parameter ("|2") are affected. -Wikid77 (17:24, 23 May 2010) revised 13:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. It looks like that worked. So, do we still need to make changes in Lon and Loff? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers seem correct, so now, the range-words need to use Convert/numdisp. See next topic. -Wikid77 13:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing subtemplates to display range fractions[edit]

Meanwhile, 4 more range-words need to use Convert/numdisp. Note the following:

{{convert|2+34/99|x|6+2/9|ft|m|abbr=on}} → 234⁄99 ft × 62⁄9 ft (0.71 m × 1.90 m)

{{convert|2+34/99|x|6+2/9|ft|m|abbr=on|2}} → 234⁄99 ft × 62⁄9 ft (0.71 m × 1.90 m)

{{convert|2+34/99|x|6+2/9|ft|m|lk=on}} → 234⁄99 by 62⁄9 feet (0.71 m × 1.90 m)

All range-words (and, or, to, by, -, x, xx) should format the fractions:

{{convert|1+1/750|x|23+1/8|ft|m|abbr=on}} → 11⁄750 ft × 231⁄8 ft (0.305 m × 7.049 m)

{{convert|1+1/750|xx|23+1/8|ft|m|abbr=on}} → 11⁄750 × 231⁄8 ft (0.305 × 7.049 m)

{{convert|1+1/750|by|23+1/8|ft|m|abbr=on}} → 11⁄750 by 231⁄8 ft (0.305 by 7.049 m)

{{convert|1+1/750|or|23+1/8|ft|m|abbr=on}} → 11⁄750 or 231⁄8 ft (0.305 or 7.049 m)

{{convert|1+1/750|and|23+1/8|ft|m|abbr=on}} → 11⁄750 and 231⁄8 ft (0.305 and 7.049 m)

{{convert|1+1/750|to|23+1/8|ft|m|abbr=on}} → 11⁄750 to 231⁄8 ft (0.305 to 7.049 m)

{{convert|1+1/750|-|23+1/8|ft|m|abbr=on}} → 11⁄750–231⁄8 ft (0.305–7.049 m)

See next 4 subtopics for changing 15 subtemplates. -Wikid77 13:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Displaying fractions for word: x[edit]

There are 4 subtemplates that display fractions for range-word "x" (as "2 x 6 mm"):

{{convert|1+2/7|x|3|ft|m|abbr=off}} → 12⁄7 by 3 feet (0.39 by 0.91 metres)

{{convert|1+2/7|x|3|ft|m|abbr=on}} → 12⁄7 ft × 3 ft (0.39 m × 0.91 m)

{{convert|1+2/7|x|3|ft|m|abbr=none}} → 12⁄7 by 3 feet (0.39 by 0.91 metres)

{{convert|1+2/7|x|3|ft|m|adj=on}} → 12⁄7-by-3-foot (0.39 m × 0.91 m)

{{convert|1+2/7|x|3|ft|m|abbr=on|adj=on}} → 12⁄7 ft × 3 ft (0.39 m × 0.91 m)

Note how the results are a combination of "by" and "×" where the word "by" is displayed for full unit names.

To fix Template:Convert/x/AoffSoff, copy Template:Convert/by/AoffSoff to show "by".
To fix Template:Convert/x/AoffSon, copy Template:Convert/by/AoffSon to show "by".
To fix Template:Convert/x/AonSoff, copy Template:Convert/xx/AonSoff to show "×".
To fix Template:Convert/x/AonSon, copy Template:Convert/xx/AonSon to show "×".

To test, redisplay this section. -Wikid77 13:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, these are done. I made a few minor tweaks, which probably weren't necessary in retrospect. Were the 'xx' versions meant to be experimental version of the 'x' templates to suppress the display of duplicate units? This feature didn't appear to be in the 'x' templates, which is why I tweaked it a bit to add the "if the units are the same" logic. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Displaying fractions for word: and[edit]

There are 4 subtemplates that display fractions for range-word "and":

{{convert|1+2/7|and|3|ft|m|abbr=off}} → 12⁄7 and 3 feet (0.39 and 0.91 metres)

{{convert|1+2/7|and|3|ft|m|abbr=on}} → 12⁄7 and 3 ft (0.39 and 0.91 m)

{{convert|1+2/7|and|3|ft|m|abbr=none}} → 12⁄7 and 3 feet (0.39 and 0.91 metres)

{{convert|1+2/7|and|3|ft|m|adj=on}} → 12⁄7-and-3-foot (0.39 and 0.91 m)

{{convert|1+2/7|and|3|ft|m|abbr=on|adj=on}} → 12⁄7-and-3 ft (0.39-and-0.91 m)

To fix Template:Convert/and/AoffSoff, copy Template:Convert/xx/AoffSoff, replace " × " (with " and "): note that the non-breaking spaces (&nbsp) become regular spaces around " and ".
To fix Template:Convert/and/AoffSon, copy Template:Convert/xx/AoffSon, replace "×" (with "and").
To fix Template:Convert/and/AonSoff, copy Template:Convert/xx/AonSoff, replace "×" (with "and").
To fix Template:Convert/and/AonSon, copy Template:Convert/xx/AonSon, replace "×" (with "and").

To test, redisplay this section. -Wikid77 13:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, these are done. Hopefully I got everything correct. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Displaying fractions for word: to[edit]

There are 4 subtemplates that display fractions for range-word "to" (as "7 to 8"):

{{convert|1+2/7|to|3|ft|m|abbr=off}} → 12⁄7 to 3 feet (0.39 to 0.91 metres)

{{convert|1+2/7|to|3|ft|m|abbr=on}} → 12⁄7 to 3 ft (0.39 to 0.91 m)

{{convert|1+2/7|to|3|ft|m|abbr=none}} → 12⁄7 to 3 feet (0.39 to 0.91 metres)

{{convert|1+2/7|to|3|ft|m|adj=on}} → 12⁄7-to-3-foot (0.39 to 0.91 m)

{{convert|1+2/7|to|3|ft|m|abbr=on|adj=on}} → 12⁄7-to-3 ft (0.39-to-0.91 m)

Fix Template:Convert/to/AoffSoff: copy Template:Convert/xx/AoffSoff and replace "×" (as "to").
Skip Template:Convert/to/AoffSon: it was fixed 2 April 2010.
Fix Template:Convert/to/AonSoff: copy Template:Convert/xx/AonSoff and replace "×" (as "to").
Fix Template:Convert/to/AonSon: copy Template:Convert/xx/AonSon and replace "×" (as "to").

To test, redisplay this section. -Wikid77 13:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be done. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Displaying fractions for word: minus[edit]

The 4 subtemplates displaying "–" do not use spaces around the dash:

{{convert|1|-|2+3/4|ft|m|abbr=off}} → 1–23⁄4 feet (0.30–0.84 metres)

{{convert|1|-|2+3/4|ft|m|abbr=on}} → 1–23⁄4 ft (0.30–0.84 m)

{{convert|1|-|2+3/4|ft|m|adj=on}} → 1–23⁄4-foot (0.30–0.84 m)

{{convert|1|-|2+3/4|ft|m|abbr=on|adj=on}} → 1–23⁄4 ft (0.30–0.84 m)

When fixing the 4 subtemplates displaying "–" then omit any spaces around the dash, so drop any " " around the "x":

Fix Template:Convert/-/AoffSoff: copy Template:Convert/xx/AoffSoff, swap " × " as "–" with no spaces around the dash, unlike all the other range-words formatted with spaces.
Fix Template:Convert/-/AoffSon: copy Template:Convert/xx/AoffSon, swap "-×-" as "–".
Fix Template:Convert/-/AonSoff: copy Template:Convert/xx/AonSoff, swap " × " as "–".
Create Template:Convert/-/AonSon: copy Template:Convert/xx/AonSon, swap "-×-" with dash "–". That subtemplate has been overlooked all these years, but it should be created.

To test, redisplay this section. -Wikid77 13:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More conversion bugs[edit]

Wikid, please see Template talk:Convert#Conversion bug for two additional buge to be fixed. Peter Horn User talk 19:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one should now be fixed Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partial revert[edit]

I had to revert this edit, due to a problem with {{convert|4800|-|4900|m|ft|sigfig=3|sp=us}}. It was complaining about commas in the expressions used for computing the converted units. Basically, it appears as though the numbers are being formatted before they are handed off to the #expr. I didn't have time to debug it completely, so I just reverted it for now. I image the other ranges have the same problem, but no one has complained yet. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I believe I figured it out, it appears as though this fixed it. I think the rest of them will need the same fix. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with the range conversion at the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. One more bug was temporarily fixed by splitting the template. Beagel (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will fix that one next. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, while checking them all, it looks like you did notice this was a problem, but not all of them were corrected. So many templates :) Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 08:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convert fraction test[edit]

What do you think about creating a subtemplate, say {{convert/is_frac}}, which returns 1 if the number has a fraction, and 0 if it doesn't. This test is repeated many times in the other subtemplates, and would simplify the code a bit. Although, it would mean yet another transclusion. Thanks for your help! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted, creating another subtemplate, to detect a fraction, would increase the template-nesting by another transclusion. That would defeat the main purpose of testing for fractions, which is to avoid invoking other nested subtemplates unless needed to format a fraction in an amount. The template-nest limit has, in fact, been exceeded in the Convert/doc documentation subpage, itself, due to invoking Convert/numdisp to display fractions when none were present. Until the English Wikipedia and Portuguese Wikipedia, both, announce a long-term-policy change to allow more than 40 nested templates, I think we should avoid creating another nested template to detect fractions in amounts, which can be done, instead, by adding just 1 if-expression where fractions might be used. Meanwhile, we should continue to combine other nested subtemplates, even though making template coding somewhat more complex, to reduce the current nesting of Convert subtemplates. Some infobox projects have proposed banning Convert due to template-nesting limits exceeded in their triple-nested infoboxes. Plus, similar changes are also needed on Simple Wikipedia, where there is a shortage of admins to perform edit-protected updates to Convert: see simple:Template_talk:Convert/updates for a list of edit-requests, which have been pending on Simple Wikipedia. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

Please be aware that I have nominated {{Tracklist custom}} for speedy deletion per this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#What_should_we_do_with_the_forked_template.3F. – IbLeo ^(talk) 05:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied with: {{hangon|Not a duplication, but redesigned in support of [[WP:Featured articles]] and sight-impaired users, per guideline rules in [[WP:ACCESS]]. See: [[Template_talk:Tracklist custom#Not a duplication|talk-page "Not a duplication"]].}}