User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive-2006-02

If you are here at the top of the page, you are lost. Go here instead.

Hi. I just realized how annoying those "access keys" are (you know, like alt+s which untimely saves your page), and I went for a look about how to switch them off. I found that it's to be done with the /monobook.js thing, of which I have absolutely no brains. The help page says I should just drop in "ta = false;" in my /monobook.js, but I ain't too sure about this. Since I know you're qualified in these things, I was wondering whether you could give me a tip. (With my ignorance, I'm not going to experiment with it without asking someone first). Cheers. — Vildricianus 10:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hehe, as I hate using a mouse/touchpad, I use the access keys all the time; it never occurred to me that someone might want to turn them off!  :-) Apparently, the MediaWiki developers didn't think that way either.  :-)

Looking at MediaWiki:Monobook.js, I'd say you need to first check your user preferences and make sure you are using the Monobook (default) skin. Then edit User:Vildricianus/monobook.js to include the line you mentioned above.

To force reloading that javascript, you'll need to log out and close all instances of your browser, then restart browser and log back in. (You might be able to just Ctrl-Shift-R, depending on your browser.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm extremely awkward on the keyboard when it comes to combining speed and quality, which results in ten previews, five moves and two log-outs while just trying to add a link :-). Thanks for testing it for me, it works indeed. (Now I wonder what other useful stuff that /monobook.js can do, but I'm afraid it's all Greek to me.) — Vildricianus 17:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Some few brave others have copied my monobook.js to their own, but results have been inconsistent. Since I wrote most of it, I am usually prepared for the odd things it does (in the weaker sections of code.) Others are sometimes caught completely unawares resulting in occasional bad edits. So it is not for the faint-of-heart. Some parts are solid and may (with community approval) eventually be moved to MediaWiki:Monobook.js but not anytime soon, I think. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Weird, though, some keys still work:

• alt+i: toggles minor edits
• alt+p: preview
• alt+s: save
• alt+f: search
• alt+v: show changes

The others are gone but it's primarily the p and s that I'd like to have switched off. I've browsed through Meta:help but it's not mentioned. According to m:Help:User style, all tooltips should be disabled when ta = false; is in. — Vildricianus 11:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. What browser are you using again? (Not that that should matter...) --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Firefox 1.5.0.1 and I have win98. No difference with IE or with winXP, though. — Vildricianus 15:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think I should pass this off to User talk:Hippietrail. He or User talk:Patrik Strivall may know this offhand. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll ask Hippietrail. Thanks anyway. — Vildricianus 16:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, have you tried this on Wikipedia? They seem to have a more customized MediaWiki:Monobook.js which may cover some of them? --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

There's more info at 'pedia, but it doesn't cover my problem either. The commands for save and preview aren't in the list at Meta. I've "solved" it by simply overriding the alt+s key with another command. Thanks for spending time on this trivial case. Cheers. — Vildricianus 18:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hrm, too bad you couldn't substitute '' for that action. Or can you? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I mean that I've assigned s to something less harmful. I would substitute ' ' indeed for the save command, but the save command just isn't there AFAIK. When I've got more time, I'll ask brion or someone else on IRC, but so far it seems as if those few commands are embedded into Mediawiki as being not up for customization. — Vildricianus 14:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the trumpet article in Wikipedia, you mentioned some uncertainty about uploading a Finale file. They can be exported as TIFF files (Graphics Tool), cut and pasted as necessary in Photoshop, and saved as .jpgs. I have also used an inexpensive program to convert them to .pdf files. 67.67.223.140 13:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I think when I asked that question on the talk page, I was unsure whether Wikipedia "liked" the .MUS type of file for inclusion on the w:trumpet page itself. Since I was using Finale Notepad, I didn't have a convenient way of doing a regular export. The full version of Finale does that no problem. I think the fingering table that is there now has more to offer anyway; the piccolo and alternate fingerings for example. Do you think the Wiki table that is there now should just be replaced with some jpgs? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

(moved conversation from my talk page)

Hi Connel. These semitautomatic edits that you're doing with your custom javascript are a good thing but they're really flooding my recent changes and watchlists. I think it would be best if you set up a special account for doing only this and get it registered as a bot so that we can hide its edits. — Hippietrail 20:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are correct that these are not automatic. I am making these changes. How about if I change my preferences to mark them all as minor? --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm nearly done now. A few more minutes, then I'll change my prefs back to not marking as minor by default. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

There should be a new XML download tomorrow, so I was trying to blast the obvious sections. But yes, they were all real edits. In theory, everything worked exactly as it should. Sorry that bothered you.

In the future, I'll try to at least remember to set my preferences before starting a large bunch of changes like that. Do you think that will be adequate?

I really don't think marking a human account as a 'bot is a good idea. It is hard enough to keep edits straight as it is. Furthermore, that would open my editing up to allegations of abuse (contrived or imagined.)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 20:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

All done for now. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the replies. Marking them as minor would also solve the flooding problem. And in cases where you also do some more significant manual edits at the same time you can always flick off the minor edit switch. Cheers. — Hippietrail 19:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

As problematic as this may have been for you, this is proving to be very problematic for me. Do you have a javascript function handy to turn the default on/off by adding a button somewhere? --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

You just made that up. If you think that they're from Bartelby, then provide a link to the entry there. --Primetime 21:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

As I delete them, I provide the copyright indicated. Bartelby is online at www.bartelby.com of course. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll get round to sorting them out tomorrow - too sleepy now. SemperBlotto 23:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I have reduced the block to 48 hours. No evidence was given of his copyvios, or that this matter was discussed with him in an attemp to resolve the problem. On the other hand his persistent imposition of his formatting views at quaint and other places do justify doubling the previous 24 hour block that was imposed. If he persists in doing this after his 48 hours are up, I would suggest roughly doubling the time on each occasion, 96 hours, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month etc. I will put a similar comment on his talk page. Eclecticology 10:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• OK. I have no objection to reducing the block. The copyvios were the entries that were deleted. (I have not finished reviewing his edits from last night, nor has SB.) There was discussion before he was blocked, but he insisted "you don't know what you're talking about". I share SB's concerns that he might try other methods if the blocks get too long. Others (especially on IRC) expressed that the block was justified, as well. I will try to let someone else issue the next block...if any more are ever needed. --Connel MacKenzie T C 11:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcome and the tips! I sure like it here, and will continue to contribute whenever I have time. And I have a question right off. If somebody writes me on my talk page (just like you did), the logical thing would be to reply there as well. But if that person is not watching my page (maybe by accident), (s)he will never know about the reply. But replying on the other user's talk page would split the discussion between two places. So is there any “proper” way to lead such a discussion? (The question may sound stupid, but the reason I ask is because I've noticed both methods used, and not sure now which way is considered good practice.) — Oleg Katsitadze 17:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have not found a satisfactory solution to the problem you describe. I try to cut-n-paste the conversation(s) onto both talk pages whenever possible, but that is awkward. I sometimes forget to do that, so occasionally conversations are missed. It is helpful to remember that talk page comments are not private at all (i.e. many people besides you and I will read this message) and other people are welcome to join these conversations at any time. The only benefit of using a user's talk page (instead of a word entry's talk page) is the alert that one user will see (indicating they have a comment directed toward them that someone wants a response to.) For archival purposes, I like to copy scraps of conversations that are scattered all over the website back here onto my talk page. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Um, isn't men already the plural of man? SemperBlotto 09:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh my. And we do have an entry for men's. --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The FTP wasn't working. It shouldn't matter.

I put up the first thousand words from the TV/movies scripts at User:Keffy/Frequency_test. It was way easier than I expected. Bots will probably be unnecessary. Keffy 17:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Great! The list itself looks great too. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Talk:سنڌي

Please take a look at template:wikipedia#Cosmetics. When adding a Wikipedia link, the very first line is where {{wikipedia}} should go, most of the time. Keep up the great edits! --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message, but I have another question. If someone uses a link with texts only, shall I replace these texts with the template? I have ocasionally done this to hopefully standardize the formats, but I would like to be better sure.--Jusjih 09:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, if you feel it is appropriate. Either format is fine. --Connel MacKenzie T C 10:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

It seems like you must be trying to help WikiMedia by taking Wikipedia articles that should be Transwiki'ed, and instead deleting them (or having them deleted) after copying them here manually in a non-Wiktionary format specifically so that they are removed or deleted here. Why do all your recent entries ignore our layout conventions? By knowingly doing it wrong you have created a lot of extra chores for us.

Please explain you actions. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

to help, i will put {{rfv}} on these dumps. -- Zondor 20:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

That is a start. But I (and I'm sure others) would appreciate it if, for future entries, you tried to use the transwiki process instead. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is there any point at all to the edit you made to whistle Dixie? Everything you entered was redundant and outside of proper headings. Why are you doing this? --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC) (edit) 22:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

because it is a "dump" straight from wikipedia. its no big deal. is there a wiktionary equivalent to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? -- Zondor 22:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me? Have you read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? The concept is to stop once you've been caught doing something wrong. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back indeed.

I hope you like the navigation aids I've added to the Beer Parlour archive. Hopefully this makes it much easier to glean policy pages from them.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 22:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcome back - except that this is only a brief visit. I'm swamped by the need to run my new business to make a living !

Boy, have you been a busy boy though (apparently) ! Keep up the good work. By all means take over any of my work, such as policies, wikisaurus etc. Richardb

Well, you have a certain knack with policies that I don't. Hopefully someone will step up to the plate. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

WikiSaurus was you? Hey then, before you go, could you comment on Category talk: Wikisaurus:Book? --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see you've changed the colors again. I'm not Ncik so I won't be edit waring with you ;). Please take a look at Template talk:delete. Thanks, Gerard Foley 01:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have completed a first trawl through the second list in /todo. I have done all the easy ones (simple moves) and quite a few ones that needed splitting. I'll do the rest some time. SemperBlotto 17:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

On the English Wiktionary, we are supposed have both the abbreviated forms and the proper titles, especially for books of the bible. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

You change the names of all the entries to abbreviations and anyone one who searchs the proper title does not get directed to the proper page. I dont care if you provide the abbreviated forms within the entry, but abbreviated titles is not appropriate and needs to be the proper title. Make sense? Anemos 22:51, 20, February 2006 (UTC)

No, that doesn't make sense for a dictionary. No one has gone around changing the proper title to the abbreviation; you were changing the abbreviations to the full title. In some cases replacing the correct abbreviation entry with redirects. That is not good. There is supposed to be an entry for the abbreviation, and an entry for the full title. Description of the Books of the Bible themselves belong on Wikipedia (as we are not an encyclopedia.) Our sister project Wikipedia is very happy to use redirects for everything. But we are discussing the words about the concepts, not the concepts themselves. --Connel MacKenzie T C 13:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just asking :) (ie not grumbling)

1. Is the use of tabulation encouraged or deprecated under some circumstances?
2. Notice you dewikified German but not Portuguese is this just a matter of judgement?

   Saltmarsh 06:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. The last time I checked, top/mid/bottom are only for translation sections. (Consistency.)
2. Portuguese should also be dewikified. The omission is in User:Connel MacKenzie/monobook.js; I try to update it, but generally only do so when I encounter a large batch of similar entries. One of these days I'll encorporate the complete "top 40" languages list, but I have not yet. Perhaps right now is a good time. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. Thanks - will stop doing it! Saltmarsh 06:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Connel. I just noticed you dewikify Yiddish and Stephen dewikify Esperanto as being common. While not a big issue I think since neither has many speakers and neither has a country or a name related to an obvious speaker base that very many people have not heard of these languages. In this light I think it's better to consider them and any borderline cases really as exotic languages and thus wikify them. It certainly doesn't hurt anyway. Thanks! — Hippietrail 17:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK. I generated my list of the "top 40" languages based on the number of entries here on en.wikt: since WT:ELE says only "top 40" but doesn't specify which those are. I was being silly, in that "top 40" was meant figuratively when I first added that...but lacking any other criteria, I took the literal most common 40 languages here.

italian,french,german,spanish,japanese,serbian,latin,swedish,dutch,finnish,russian,
norwegian,bosnian,esperanto,chinese,portuguese,irish,polish,slovak,czech,danish,greek,
hebrew,turkish,welsh,hungarian,korean,arabic,romanian,indonesian,croatian,vietnamese,
bulgarian,hindi,filipino,icelandic,albanian,sanskrit,slovene,thai,yiddish

So, which of these should be wikified, and which de-wikified? Is there any better rule-of-thumb I should follow? Or are those the only two exceptions that you spot? --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

My rule of thumb is common sense. If you can imagine yourself talking to a "normal person" about a language and them saying "what's that?" then it needs to be wikified. Failing that go with what I said above: "not having many speakers and neither a country or a name related to an obvious speaker base that very many people have not heard of".

Of your list I would wikify Esperanto, Sanskrit, and Yiddish for sure. In the blurry area are Irish, Hindi, and Filipino. Irish because it's practical because a lot of people think the language is called Gaelic which is actually an ambiguous term, Hindi though it has an enormous number of speakers doesn't sound obviously related to India and I wouldn't be surprised if many English speakers are ignorant of it, Filipino because of the confusion between it, Pilipino, and Tagalog - there are subtle differences that it doesn't hurt to promote by making clickable. — Hippietrail 17:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Could you update WT:ELE with the list please? I'm not sure how to word it without being POV. Perhaps list "here are the languages we think are common" or something? I think listing the ones we don't think are common may be asking for trouble. But in the case of Irish, your explanation above might help. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Connel! Thank you for voting for me on the admin page.  :) --Dijan 21:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed you removing links from 2000s, but I just want to say that wikified dates allow changes based on users' preference, such as January 1, 2000, but "January 1, 2000" is not automatically converted to 1 January 2000. This conversion works in the same way as in English Wikipedia.--Jusjih 03:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. But we don't have entries for days of the year, as Wikipedia does. I understood red links were to be removed if we would never likely have entries but perhaps all 366 entries could be made into redirects to their months. I think I'd like to move this to the Beer Parlour, since I don't have a clue what the "correct" answer might be. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply. I consider that all 366 entries can be valuably established. As I am between bilingual and trilingual, I can prepare these articles in English, Chinese, and French with translations. Please note that different languages use different styles. For example, English dates can be month-day (American) or day-month (Commonwealth), but Chinese dates are month-day only while French ones are mostly day-month only. I have seen month-day French dates used by astronomy only while most Francophones considers them wrong in grammar.--Jusjih 07:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've asked the question at Wiktionary: Beer parlour#Wikipedia dates - please feel free to add to the conversation that is starting there. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

see nicolatian

Hello Andrew,

Thanks for the VIP alert. Did you mean to hide it in my talk page that way? I think anyone smart enough to check Special:Recentchanges will figure it out soon enough...fortunately only two vandals so far have been even that intelligent. So I think it would be safe to just tack any future alerts onto the end of the talk page, signed. SB is often faster than I am, if he's online. Likewise tawker, Dvorty and others.

I think the best way to address spamming is to blank the entry and rfd it. As long as you tag the entry and put an entry on the Requests for deletion page, it will get taken care of. Some vandals like to remove the rfd tag. Go ahead and let them - initially. As long as an entry is on the requests page, it'll get whacked anyway (if it really is spam.)

Many vandals come here, screw up an entry, check back on it in 5 minutes, then again in a couple hours. If entries are cleaned up the next day, this seems to prevent rounds of revandalism, saves the sysop (me!) the hassle of blocking them, and gives the vandals a false sense of superiority. (They are thereafter watched closer by the anti-vandal bot; subsequent abuses are sometimes autoblocked, sometimes autoreverted.)

So, I'm not worried that a vandal might read your talk page. Apparently they don't, in general. If this one spammer is the exception to the rule, well, there's nothing said here that he couldn't be discovered elsewhere.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 21:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Moved to Wiktionary talk:About Algonquian languages

Hi Connel! I have a question about a message that keeps showing right after I save an edited page (the page does not get saved, but instead displays the message bellow; the page gets saved after I have to click on the save button several times and the message disappears.) The message is: "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still doesn't work, try logging out and logging back in." Is this a new message? I've never seen it before and now it keeps showing after every edit. --Dijan 12:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

This very highly annoying error message starts to occur every time a squid server is rebooted, and the database servers get confused. The easiest way to get rid of the error message is to log out and log back in. A couple times I had to restart my browser to clear it. --Connel MacKenzie T C 12:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is annoying. Thanks. --Dijan 12:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you please restore slaaf and sigaar if it's not too much trouble? (Their last version was safe). Thanks. — Vildricianus 21:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK. I blasted it, as it was part of the flurry of nonsense. I would have rather they be reentered, but since you've already verified them they are now restored. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. — Vildricianus 18:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

After deletion of a page, there's a message that pops up that reads (in the case after I deleted Template:Chironomidae, as with others) ........Note deletion on Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Template:Chironomidae........

Where's the mediawiki page where I can change the text for that? It is a little misleading perhaps. Also, I'm thinking about creating some kind of Administrator's noticeboard much like w:wp:an so ppl can get in touch with the admins, unless we have such a page already. I'll make a draft in the next few days at User:Dangherous/Admin noticeboard probably. --Dangherous 17:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I added this quite recently. I thought it would be a helpful link, since most of the time there is a corresponding page on RFD (or should be) and this link will take a sysop to the appropriate section of it (if there is one.) Please leave this link there somewhere, for me; I use it. If you want to reword it, feel free! And be bold, with your other ideas about a notice board (that I don't quite get, myself...I thought that's what RFD was?) --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Please keep in mind that all pages in MediaWiki: namespace are protected (at the software level; attempts to unprotect these pages fail silently.) Note also that new software versions can overwite this namespace, so keep copies of edits elsewhere (your hard drive?) Lastly, note the funky syntax for parameters; be careful, and double test every change in the MW: namespace! --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Connel, but it looked very much like that category was not in use.--Richardb 13:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

This entry has no ==language== heading, but is not in your /todo4 list. Has it fallen through a hole? (I have left it unchanged for now) SemperBlotto 15:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is in /todo2 for "Alternate spelling", and was excluded from later lists (such as /todo4.) Do you think I should run /todo4 clearing the "previous" list from now on? Dvorty asked that entries not be listed more than once...and to cut down on the various list sizes, I tend to agree...but maybe /todo4 is an exception?

THANK YOU for pointing out possible discrepancies! And for not messing with it, when you found it. It makes it a lot easier to track down. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

You believe that these images should not be shown on Wiktionary because you think they're 'sick'. That implies a moral judgment, and is therefore directly in opposition to NPOV, the founding principle of all Wikimedia projects. If Wiki cannot conform to all worldwide communities (and it can't), then it should not conform to any of them. The image is legal and directly relevant to the entry and should stay, unless you have editorial reasons for its removal (which should be discussed on its talk page).

Do I do everything anonymous IPs tell me? When they have a valid point, then yes. But I think that IP was probably User:Paroxysm Gerard Foley 22:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply