User talk:Kingboyk/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kingboyk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

(Sound of coughing, and tapping on table...) "Ladies and Gents, I gratefully accept this heartwarming Barnstar for my unofficial admin role as Bargain bin editor. I thank his Royal Highness Kingboyk for bestowing this award on myself. I will now celebrate with a pint of golden nectar which I will proceed to pour down me throat. Now.... Do you have any more cheap, unloved, or merge articles that I can get me greasy fingers on?" --andreasegde 18:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Crestville thinks my answer was irreverent, but it wasn't. I thank you again. You deserve a Barnstar for the great work you constantly do on The Beatles pages. We are the links, but you are the chain. --andreasegde 21:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

irreverent?! Lol! It was quite amusing. Where's my beer?! --kingboyk 21:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I have a change that I would like to have made at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. The change would start at the top of the "Guide" section and would stop right before the text "Also, to reduce bureaucracy,". I have stored the text in the sandbox in this (diff). It looks like you are on-line, could you please post this for me? Thanks --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather leave that to Martin, it's his gig. If it's urgent and he doesn't show up by the end of the day message me again. Thanks. --kingboyk 12:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but please also note that I did talk to Martin here and here. It is certainly not urgent, but I am thinking that Martin might like someone other than him to make the change here as a validation that there is some consensus rather than an abuse of power on his part. Of course, if you feel that I am misinterpreting this, please use your best judgment as both an admin and someone who knows him better than I do. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case I'll look into it over the course of the afternoon. Thanks for clarifying the situation. --kingboyk 13:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit tied up with FAC work, so I'll attend to this and other messages later. --kingboyk 17:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but no need. Martin did go ahead and post it for me. I'm sorry I didn't think to come back here and let you know sooner. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I try not to reject things out of hand, so I want to hear your case for this. Two questions:

a) Why me?

b) How does this make my life better?

Let me know and I'll consider it.--Mike Selinker 16:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The main reason I asked is that you do a lot of "meta" work, and in the case of deleting blatantly bad categories or speedy renaming, it would be easier for you - and easier for the admins on CFD - if you could perform these duties yourself. I'm not sure it would make your life significantly better but it would allow you to go about your category sorting business more effectively :) --kingboyk 10:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is an admin required to do anything? Like if I said, "I want to be an admin to help with categorization, but I don't really want to spend my time deleting vandal accounts," is that shirking my responsibilities? Because I'm definitely in favor of doing the stuff I like to do more successfully, but not if I can't do that because I have too many other tasks I have to do.--Mike Selinker 14:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not required to do anything. I can't guarantee you'd be successful in a nomination either, of course, but I think your platform (very active in CFD, needs adminship to help further in that arena) is a good one. I'd support. I'd be happy to nom or co-nom too if you wish (but probably not today). --kingboyk 14:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and nominate me. We'll see where it heads. Thanks for doing this!--Mike Selinker 16:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You just deleted that one so you could make the "struck out" joke. I highly respect that.--Mike Selinker 08:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work. The Composition section is very well done, now. I have voted "support" on the article's FAC. The minor issues I cited are of extremely low importance, and I doubt anyone else will notice, so you don't need to worry about them. Again, excellent work. JimmyBlackwing 11:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Steve. Do you know if its possible to rename a user account (moving all related subpages, history, logs etc? I originally wanted the username User:Setanta, but that was unavailable at the time I registered. Now it appears to be free. Cheers.

Oh - btw .. 100+ edits with AWB so far (having renamed the Kingbotk dll), and no errors/crashing. Having said that, AWB forced me to upgrade to the latest version.

I'm going to try the Kingbotk plugin again shortly, and I'll keep you advised. You been having problems still, or is it sorted? --Mal 20:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The latest AWB version is in the latest plugin download. There's never been any significant bugs in the tagging part of the program (it's been used on tens of thousands of edits), there were some issues with the manual assessment feature. Of course the best way to nail them is to use the features and report any issues back to me for fixing.

See Wikipedia:Changing username. It says accounts which are registered but have no edits generally can't be usurped but a bureaucrat might do it. Setanta is registered - see Special:Listusers. Just follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Changing username and try your luck. Or stick with what you have of course. --kingboyk 10:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have left a request for you. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

On 9 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kylie Said To Jason, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Peta 12:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you! --kingboyk 12:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all the effort you put into the reviews - I'll get to work on the article a.s.a.p, and it'll be on the main page before you know it :) --Alex (Talk) 14:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, you're welcome. Thanks for taking it on the chin! Good man. --kingboyk 14:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

""Fourteen housemates entered on launch night, but over the whole series there were a total of twenty-two, more than in any previous series." This isn't FA class writing.'

'"This year, Big Brother was criticised in the media for both its choice of housemates and its practice once the housemates were inside."'

Could you possibly clarify what would be FA class writing in that first quote, and also how do I improve the second quote? Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please? --Alex (Talk) 14:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sort your structure out first is my advice. The writing can be improved later. The two sentences quoted aren't too bad really and I can't think of how to rewrite them at the moment - nor is it my job :) Somebody else critised the first line as being unclear; the second one is my objection - I don't like "its practice". It could do with being more specific, such as "its treatment of housemates". --kingboyk 15:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Anytime, I notice how much effort you put into the articles so thought it was only fair I helped you a little - what initially attracted me to them is how well written and cited they are. I'm kinda jealous actually, as I'd like to do the same thing with Marilyn Manson related articles, only I don't possess the time nor the expertises to do this. The Manson article (on the person) itself has an awful layout, and I cannot for the life of me work out how to amend this. You have any ideas? My real name's Anthony Morgan if you're wondering. LuciferMorgan 23:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm very good at writing essays (offset by having a bad memory and not so good at exams!), and of course I'm a bit of a wiki-addict who has spent a silly amount of time working on articles :) The most important thing though, by far, is the availability of sources. I love The KLF and they're fun to write about because they had that rare combination of utter madness, the DIY spirit or "punk ethic", and commercial success. They're not the only band I like though... the reason why I've been able to write quality articles on this band and not the hundreds of others in my collection is simply because I've had access to so many great articles. Give me a stack of articles and enough time and I could write an FA on any band, and so probably could you. Now, with Manson, you could probably write a similarly interesting and well-sourced article as The KLF. He's another fella that doesn't give a f*ck (making for some interesting antics no doubt) yet has been very successful (= lots of media coverage). I appreciate it takes time which you don't have, but to make it easier arranging a logical structure is paramount. Then you can chip away at sections as and when you have time...

I've left a few notes at Manson's talk page. The article is in a right old mess isn't it? Too many section headers and badly organised is the basic problem there. --kingboyk 09:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving notes at the talk page - once I've worked up Iron Maiden to GA (it's gonna lose its FA in my opinion) I'll begin with the Manson article and chip away at it - I have a few sources to use so that won't be a problem.

The person who said your 1987 article is only GA, well in my opinion her objections aren't actionable. She must make specific FA criteria concerns to make her objection valid. LuciferMorgan 11:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are actionable objections, and, seperately, there's "is it our best work?". I think they're entitled to say "no it isn't" but ought really to give a reason... --kingboyk 11:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to send a quick note of thanks for your support in my RfA. :-) I really appreciate it! Best, Irongargoyle 03:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you requested deletion for the One Peice attacks, I thought you could help out here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Hydromasta231 04:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello old friend. You are the only Administrator I know, so sorry if this seems a bit random: Check the history for Juicebox please. There is a user (IP only) who keeps adding a definition of juicebox (Something like "an underground swearword") and I reverted it, and it's just basically an edit war. I have left comments in the discussion but I get no reply, and the user just deletes what I've wrote every now and then. Well, I hope you can help rinse this scum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexbuirds (talk • contribs) .

Hi. Yes, he seems to be a pain doesn't he. He got a final warning last night I see. If he pops up again, it's pretty clearly vandalism so post it at WP:AIV and an admin will deal with it. I'm not gonna block an IP address retrospectively and most admins won't, so catch him in the act and report it at AIV and you might get some peace and quiet for a while :) --kingboyk 09:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! :) Troubleshooter 14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My changes were in line with WikiPolicy. You have reverted to a solecism. - Kittybrewster 11:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#.7B.7BLog.7D.7D. A bot log is a historical record and shouldn't be amended. --kingboyk 11:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't perform moves without thinking about them first. "Here Comes the Sun" does not need a disambiguation page. To 99%+ of readers it is a George Harrison/Beatles song. The 1% looking for a cover album by Nina Simone can be directed there by way of a dab link at the top of the Beatles article. 2-entry dab pages, where one of the entries is hugely more famous than the other, are simply not neccessary

Hello Kingboyk, read your comment on my talk page and saw that you edited my changes back to what they were. I understand your arguments and respect your decision. However stating that 99% of the readers will only associate the title with the Beatlessong itself is a bit overstated, and as of talking about the Simone album as merely a cover album...but that's just me simone-nerdtalking. :) Marcel flaubert 13:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not overstated. The album is even named after the song! If it's so important why didn't it get an article until October 2006, eh? :) Never mind, we have a decent dab scheme in place now I think - anybody looking for the album article will easily find it, and ditto for the song. --kingboyk 13:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not implying that the album is 'so important', just that there are also people who by thinking of Here Comes the Sun also think about this album, the songs on it with a distinct Nina-reinterpretation and the minimalistic sixties coverart. And as you say, the dab scheme works fine for everybody, and my decision to rename the article was unjustified. Marcel flaubert 14:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I've never heard the album and so have to reserve judgement on its qualities, but on the reputation of the artist alone I'm sure it's fantastic. That doesn't negate the point that the song came first, has links, and is extremely famous. Glad we've got a sensible scheme in place now anyway. Cheers! --kingboyk 14:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comments there - you can check what I had to say. Is it me, or does just about every Metal/Rock article have weasly, uncited statements in them with critiques about albums (again without cites)? I'm really fed up with that Wikiproject be honest, seems like fancruft galore. LuciferMorgan 21:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely not just you! ;) --kingboyk 21:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to know someone has sense. Nobody listens to my pleas for NPOV and inline cites on the Project talk page. The Iron Maiden is currently on FAR - I'm trying to save it, but it has huge problems as concerns weasly statements, no cites and fancruft - a typical Wikipedia Metal article unfortunately. LuciferMorgan 11:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiya. In the Kittie photo, the hottie on the left is Trish Doan. Just to let you know. ScreamAtMe 22:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes it is. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I was just writing up an RFA nom for her: User:AudeVivere/Plange. Can this be a co-nom? --Aude (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, bad timing huh? :) I'll discuss this with her off wiki. When I approached her before, she wanted me and another named party to nominate (I won't say who, as I've sent an off wiki email to the person). I don't like to have 3 noms... have you discussed a nom with her or this your own initiative? There's no rush anyway, please don't add a conom until we've found out what she wants. --kingboyk 17:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I added it, and dropped a note on her talk page. I was drafting it up this morning, went away from my computer for an hour, came back and found yours. She has been a great help taking over Portal:Biography, which I had been doing but no longer have the time for. I haven't discussed this with her, but looking at her contributions and watching her for a few months, I have no doubt that she is ready. I am willing to withdraw it if that's what she wants. --Aude (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Incredible timing. I'd been meaning to nom her for ages, and when out walking today it flashed through my head that I ought to do it. Probably just as you were typing yours up! I'll contact her offwiki to see what she wants to do. (I'll restore your edits if it's you and me or a 3 person nom, but I really hope it's not the latter as I hate those). --kingboyk 17:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted my edits, but my write-up is at User:AudeVivere/Plange. --Aude (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Question moved to and replied at User_talk:Kingbotk/Plugin#Your_advice. --kingboyk 18:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Question from WikiProject Guitarists. As we are sorting through guitarist articles, we are noticing many that have not been identified by WikiProject Biography. In order to avoid duplicating work, should we be at the minimum placing these articles in Category:Living people? Will that let your bot catch them? What if they're dead? --Aguerriero (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the question. I've finished my run on Category:Living people and won't do another probably until next year (because of the size of the category). That said, if the person is alive they should be in that category, yes.

The other way I've been finding articles to tag is through the people by occupations categories (see WP:BIOA for some of this work). It's quite possible I just haven't got to those articles yet (10s of 1000s still to do), or it might be that they're not in any category I can reasonably find. If there's any categories you want done as a priority let me know and I'll try to tag them.

If you find the odd stray article untagged, please add {{WPBiography|living=yes|musician-work-group=yes}}, removing the |living=yes if they're dead of course :) Thanks. --kingboyk 18:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You should do the death & births by years categories like Category:1982 births. Lincher 18:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul McCartney, Neil Aspinall: I have done as much as I can at the moment on both articles, and I think it would be good to have them both assessed. I will be interested to see what Macca gets :) --andreasegde 20:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Macca can't go any higher without being formally assessed. Why don't you try nominating it for GA status? See WP:GAC. I think it has a decent chance, and if it fails you'll get some tips for how to improve it - win win situation! :) I'll assess Aspinall's article tommorow but at a glance it should be a surefire B.

Thanks again for the work you've been doing and it's great to see somebody has caught the citations bug! Top marks, andreasegde :) --kingboyk 20:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:GAC is so confusing it makes my eyes water. It's all about what a good article is, but not how to get it assessed. Do me favour, and put in in.... --andreasegde 23:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody's tagged the Beatles main article for speedy deletion! I'd keep an eye on the page for awhile, and remove the deletion tag. LuciferMorgan 11:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the vandals. They are learning how to be Trojan horses, by pretending to be admins. --andreasegde 14:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have had second thoughts about it being assessed. I think it could do with more polishing, and then go for GA status. --andreasegde 14:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well up to you. You want the nomination withdrawn? --kingboyk 14:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't, now. (Indecisions, indecisions...)I have worked on it a lot over the past few days, and I think it's doing well. --andreasegde 16:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you advise me of the appropriate place where I can express my perception of Systematic bias I am finding in many Wiki articles?LessHeard vanU 16:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I honestly don't know. Perhaps you should ask on the village pump or the admins noticeboard? --kingboyk 09:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the village pump will be my best avenue.LessHeard vanU 11:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Truth is I just started placing them because I was tinkering around with the cats for WikiProject Organized Labour. Kind of one of those mindless things that feels good to do once in a while. :/ Your right about the bot doing it though, I'll bring it up at the talk page. --Bookandcoffee 19:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't rollback your edit "as vandalism". The edit summary in this edit doesn't mention "vandalism". I rolled back the removal of the AFD notice because it was an obvious mistake. I've used the same process to revert my own edits when I've made mistakes, as seen here. John254 19:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but rollback is generally meant for vandalism not fixing mistakes. As for rolling oneself back, I do it all the time :) --kingboyk 19:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings kingboyk. I am pasting the comments that I put on john254's page below. The point was because I saw the confusion regarding the AfD tags on the Strata page (sorry that I am not bothering to insert links but I am being lazy). I took a quick look and saw that although you deleted the tags you were right to do so even though the debate had not been closed. The AfD tag was accidentally replaced by someone with the wrong tag, as you probably already know:

• I hope I can offer an clear explantion for what I think happened. An unsigned vandal, not kingboyk, deleted the AfD tag. This was for the current debate. It was reverted by another user, since the debate had not been formally resolved. The vandal did it again. At some point (I would have to look closer) the AfD tag was replaced by accident with the AfD tag for the old debate, so if you click on the debate link it takes you to the resolved old debate. I assume that kingboyk clicked it, saw the old debate, and thought to himself (as he said in the edit comments) that the debate is decided? then why is this tag here, it must be a mistake. He then deleted it. There was a vandal, but it is not kingboyk. It was a user using an IP address. Kingboyk did well, and shouldn't be seen as a vandal. Both you and he tried to keep wikipedia in proper order, but the vandal confused us all. I would prefer for someone other than myself to correct the AfD tag since I am involved in the debate on the side of debate and would not like for anyone to see me tampering with the page right now, as this might make a user with a keep vote assume that I am up to no good. Thank you! Green hornet 20:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Green hornet 20:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Heya Kingboy. Sasha (DJ) failed its FAC due to copy-editing issues.  :( Is there any way either you or if you know anyone else would copy-edit it? Is there a list of people who are willing to perform final touch-ups on almost FAs or anything? You can check out the failed fac reasons here. I would be (even more) in your debt! I'd owe ya one. Thanks for your time! If you would like for me to try some copy-editing/other work on articles you think need another set of eyes, I would be more than willing to.

Also, been rooting through The Orb stuff you emailed me. Its really great stuff! Ugh, can't wait to get Sasha to FA standards so I can concentrate on getting The Orb to GA. Wickethewok 06:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Vinoir was my copyeditor and he's no longer here. I guess the music WikiProjects ought to keep a list of folks who are willing to copyedit FACs? Perhaps you could suggest it. I suspect my current FAC could do with an extra sweep too. --kingboyk 09:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, thats too bad. I'll check around through other people I've had contact with in the past to see if any of them boast of their copy-editing skills. If I have any luck, I'll share 'em with ya.  ;-) Wickethewok 14:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Btw, the most recent pseudo-objection to 1987's FAC is really ridiculous. Wickethewok 14:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, but at least the true nature of the objection has come to light now :) (it was pretty much as I suspected) so presumably Raul will ignore it. --kingboyk 11:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

...won a t-shirt for being the best in the humanities and culture category. Next year, the awards should add submission requirements of listing the primary authors of the work, and should offer some secondary compensation for the nominator of winning entries. Let me know how to send you your shirt -- just send a snail mail address and preferred size / design to my wiki email. Cheers, +sj + 12:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool! I'm really happy that the KLF article won an award, I'm very jealous indeed! I've yet to work an article up towards GA status, let alone your massive KLF contributions! Very well done. LuciferMorgan 19:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I wasn't very happy, cos nobody told me and I wouldn't have got any recognition at all if I hadn't found out about it on Google and complained! Still, it's certainly nice to get this sort of recognition from peers. Now, can somebody give me a nice job please?! --kingboyk 11:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I tried to edit Template:WPBiography such that one could choose the order in whihc articles are listed. It didn't work. Could you please help out? Cheers, // DBD 22:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Update - Yeah, sorry about the errors - I thought I could do it... Interesting we dropped comments to eachother at a similar time! // DBD 22:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kingboyk. I see that you've deleted WP:WONK as a cross-namespace redirect; out of curiosity, what was its target page? Picaroon9288 23:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. It's: User:JzG/Wikipedia:Wonks. --kingboyk 23:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

An idea for the plugin (not sure how difficult it would be to code):

Currently, the plugin will set auto=yes whenever it automatically sets the class—in particular, when the article has already been manually assessed at the same level (e.g. here). Would it be possible to have it check for an existing "Stub" rating, and, if present, not set the auto parameter? (Or, in a more limited way, tie multiple taggings together; e.g. if it's tagging with two banners, and one of them is already present and assessed, assume the existing rating is valid.) Kirill Lokshin 01:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It won't replace an existing template's assessment grade with auto, of course, but yes in those cases where there's already a grading from an existing WikiProject it will (as that diff shows).

I'll need to think about this. This is, in a very abbreviated fashion, how the plugin works (bearing in mind that it has to support an indeterminate number of templates at the same time):

• Plugin manager receives the article text from AWB
• Plugin manager sends text to first active plugin

• Active plugin looks for it's own template
• Parses template parameters if template exists
• Adds template if doesn't exist
• Returns control to plugin manager

• Plugin manager sends the processed text to the next active plugin
• ...etc.

Currently, then, the individual templates are processed one at a time. If they were to affect each other (i.e. a grading from one is used in another) I'd have to add some extra steps to that process and shift quite a lot of code around. When I've finished the logging feature I'll take a look at how difficult it might be (which may range from a few minutes cutting and pasting to "not worth the effort" :)). --kingboyk 11:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked him, at least for now. He hasn't even edited since I posted there, and blocking someone after 6+ months of being here for a username violation, without asking them kindly first, is a bit harsh. I'm watching the account for now, and will reblock if he doesn't change his username. Ral315 (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. We don't allow usernames of the famous unless they're being used by the famous person in question, which this one isn't. Where's the room for leeway? It's a black and white issue surely? --kingboyk 20:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not leeway so much as "the guy's been here a while, let's let him change his username before blocking". Blocking him and forcing him to create a new account actually compounds the problems, since the edits still appear attributed to "Lemmy Kilmister", one of the main reasons we have the username policy. Ral315 (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Please keep an eye on it then. Cheers. --kingboyk 11:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Improper unprotection of 5B.5BAlbert Einstein.5D.5D. --teb728 00:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I see other admins have already replied. This is a customer service announcement from Wikipedia, the enyclopedia that anyone can edit. --kingboyk 11:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've yet to investigate Megadeth's vast back catalogue (I only know certain songs), so cannot pass judgement on what is their best album ('Countdown to Extinction' could be indeed be their best).

On another note, since you have some FA songs, could you go to the talk page for 'The Beautiful People' and offer what could be done to take it from GA to FA? An editor has been working away on it for awhile, and I'm a big Manson fan so like to see his articles improvised indeed. LuciferMorgan 19:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I only really know Countdown, but it's a very good album...

The Beautiful People is a nice article. I'd stub out or remove as many of the redlinks as possible; try to find more reviews (only 2?!); get a source for the discography info. Also there's info which is in the lead but not in the body. --kingboyk 11:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC) PS The Iron Maiden articles are stinkin' terrible aren't they?! "Fans" this, "fans" that. Somebody out there has a fundemental misuderstanding about Wikipedia...

Thanks for the comments on "The Beautiful People", they're heavily appreciated. LuciferMorgan 17:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC) PS - Indeed they are stinking terrible articles, though typical Wikipedia heavy metal articles unfortunately. If I had to obliterate one Wikiproject it'd be Wikiproject Metal, ie. what have they done to address the situation? Rather than address it, they've worsened it. I wish there was some Wikipolicy that'd give them an ass whipping for their fancruft - all the reviews are editor's opinions and not those of reviewers, like the work of drooling 13 yr olds. There's a few factual inaccuracies in the articles also. The "fans" this and that really drives me nuts - if they wish to make a comment upon an album's reception they should hunt down music reviews. What's most unfortunate is that there's a lot of interest in the Maiden articles, but not any worthy editors. LuciferMorgan 17:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, in a way, Wikipedia isn't the best venue for the kind of articles those guys aspire to. Fan reaction is quite relevant to articles on albums, but it just isn't enyclopedic. There are exceptions of course; reactions to Beatle records are well recorded and form an important part of cultural history. Reactions of Maiden fans to albums written by one of those fans without sources - nope. --kingboyk 11:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC) PS I'm thinking of getting the CD/DVD of Maiden's latest album, sounds like it might be a good buy. Do you recommend it?

It's one of two Dickinson era albums I don't own, the other being "Somewhere In Time". I've heard the single "Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg" and I'm a big fan of it - sounds like an ascendant of "Hallowed Be Thy Name" in my opinion. Still though, my fave Maiden album is "Brave New World" - people who prefer more progressive metal will enjoy it (for fans of 5mins plus songs). LuciferMorgan 16:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Trying to reach an infobox consensus here: [2]. Please can you weigh-in with your opinion? 129.127.28.3 12:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for casting your vote on the Einstein infobox. Please now go to [3] to give your opinion on how you want the individual fields modified. SuperGirl 08:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The particular example you refer to can easily be cited, as it's present on "The Nobodies" UK single as a B-side - the B-side is called "The Death Song (With Bible Speech)". Manson goes on to say "God killed his own motherfucking son" in this same performance - the example basically needs a rewrite so it's shown as Manson's quoted opinion (which it is) as opposed to an audience member.

Having said that, I agree with your opinions and am concerned about the article as I know it'll appear at FAR sooner or later if it isn't brushed up. When time permits, I'll make this a priority before tackling the article on the man himself. LuciferMorgan 11:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, but I wouldn't worry too much - I only had a quick glance but it looks like it's saveable. Just work at it as and when you can and it should be fine. I'm afraid that whilst I have very wide musical tastes, Manson isn't my cup of tea so I won't be helping much ;) --kingboyk 11:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, long as you can lend the odd peer review here and there as you have done, which is much appreciated. LuciferMorgan 12:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

File:Vitruvian Original Barnstar.png		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I know I've already given you one, but dang, you just keep rolling! This latest edition of the kingbotk Plugin, with the auto-uploads of logs, is simply brilliant!! plange 03:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Enough already! Thanks though :) --kingboyk 12:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It may not be the place for an editor (especially not one such as I) to admonish an Admin with X FA's and Y GA's, but I don't think "Bah! etc..." is exactly wiki language. Indeed, it wasn't at all diplomatic. Although the article may have needed rejigging - and I acknowledge that if you think it did then it likely did - you may have considered the feelings of someone who had recently spent a lot of time and effort on it and discussed it first. The argument that wiki is bigger than any one editor applies accross the board. Andreasedge has not contributed to wikipedia since, and it would be a shame if such a good and enthusiastic editor were to be lost.LessHeard vanU 14:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)You can shout at me, as my ego is immune, but this is a heartfelt comment regarding two people I think highly of.

Well what am I supposed to do about it? I restructured the article and he threw his toys out of the pram. Didn't try and discuss it just stormed off. I'm not saying my way is right simply that it was badly structured before - so retain my solution or come up with a better one! I've taken the article off my watchlist and he can structure it as he sees fit. My offer still stands - get it to FA and I'll send him a beer. What else can I do? --kingboyk 14:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the matter is not of logic, policy or such regarding the article - but the presentation of the editing and the lack of prior discussion. I'm not here to argue Andreasedge's position, just to note the reaction. As it is Andreasedge has made contact and is mulling over his future contributions; which (hopefully) means he stays on wikipedia which I think is a good thing.

I'm not asking you to do anything; I'm just pointing out a consequence of your interaction with an editor. What you do with the info is entirely up to you. I am just trying to be a good and wise old fart.LessHeard vanU 15:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If I had known that "toys/prams" scenarios were endemic in The Beatles Project I would have kept my mouth shut! I don't know what removing yourself from the Project will achieve, in fact I believe it will suffer, but you seem a little sensative regarding mild criticism. On the basis that Wiki is bigger than any of us I apologise for mentioning my comments. LessHeard vanU 15:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No it's not that, but I don't think we have the same aims. The state of articles has got worse and not better, and my speak frankly and aim for the skies approach perhaps isn't best suited to the social atmosphere of the WikiProject. I don't mind the criticism, although as before I'm not sure there's anything I can do about it other than leave the article off my watchlist and say "fix it as best as you can even if you don't like my solution" :) --kingboyk 15:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This was brought to my attention... Anything I can do to help, mate? Maybe chat on MSN or IRC about it? we have to find the right balance here, hmmm? else things will get worse qualitywise rather than better. ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The restructuring of Paul McCartney made the article significantly better to follow, and stopped it from being all over the shop - I for one was pleased at the restructure, and it helped it towards goals of GA/FA status. I'd like it noted that nobody owns a Wikipedia article, and it can be edited by anyone - editors should be grateful of help, not protective of an article. Indeed, if I had someone helping me on an article I wished to improve (especially someone like Kingboyk) I'd be over the moon.

Having said that, I hope Andreasdge comes back - he's one of the few Beatles Project members I respect, as he (along with Kingboyk) was one of only two people who commented on FAR regarding the Beatles lost FAs. LuciferMorgan 18:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agree totally. That's why I felt it best to remove the article from my watchlist and leave him to it. He's a good editor. --kingboyk 11:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nice spot, who knew there was a separate section for admins? ;) Deizio talk 12:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's so that you can get extra requests on your talk page... and, fortunately, you're ahead of me in the alphabet. Good luck! ;) --kingboyk 12:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well that's something to look forward to... "Ah, my esteemed colleague kingboyk is far more experienced in these matters than I..." ;) Deizio talk 14:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Lol, OK. Anyway, welcome aboard, good to have you as a member. --kingboyk 14:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kingboyk,

I noticed you're the user who operates Kingbotk, the bot that added the Biography Project banner to a lot of articles. I was one of the users, who recently started the WikiProject Germany, and we are now trying to add our project banner to articles that fit the scope of the project, but I'm starting to notice how much work that is even with AWB. I was wondering if you could somehow help us with your bot or by helping me design an identical bot I could use or something like that.

Thanx, --Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 17:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My bot is AWB in auto mode, using my plugin which is freely downloadable. Your options are, I think, getting your own account or - perhaps a better idea - enlisting an AWB bot operator who is looking for tasks to do. Ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests. --kingboyk 13:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 21:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel I must express my immense frustration that you deleted both of the categories I created ("RS 500 albums and songs") due to a false idea that they were both copyvios. You try working hard to populate a cetegory and see how you feel when someone deletes it for their own sheer joy. How is a category a copyright violation? To have gone to a site, copied the list, and pasted it on the site is indeed because it copies text from another site. But please explain how it is copyvio to add the label "Category:RS 500 albums" on the articles of all the albums that were featured on Rolling Stone's list. Actually, don't bother, because you can't explain anything. IT"S NOT A COPYVIO, GODDAMNIT! Bring both those categories back right now!

2Pac 22:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I nominated them for deletion, but according to the log another admin deleted it. It's a pretty clear copyright violation to me, but if you disagree please appeal at WP:DRV. --kingboyk 11:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was so helpful. I ask why it is a copyright violation and show why it is not, and you reply by saying "it is a pretty clear copyvio". Thanks for solving all my problems. 2Pac 00:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a copyvio because it's a backdoor representation of the list. Why do you care what I think anyway? I didn't delete it and certainly won't be undeleting it. I've told you the venue to get a deletion reviewed at: WP:DRV. That's all the help I can give. These issues don't need to be personal and I really don't care if you list it there - in fact I'd quite happily list it for you if you like. --kingboyk 13:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In this edit you added a biography project template, however you also removed the {{talkheader}} template. What was the reason for doing that? __meco 17:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's unnecessary clutter. The page has only one comment on it. Think about it: if the message in talkheader is so important why isn't it a site wide default in Mediawiki? --kingboyk 18:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wondered. __meco 21:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. By all means put it back if you feel it's needed, but that's why I zapped it :) --kingboyk 10:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC) PS It was a manual edit. I use my bot account for automated edits. My plugin doesn't remove talkheader templates.

Stephen, thank you so much for being my nominator for RfA and helping me with the process! I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I don't think anyone dared oppose having you guys as my nominators! :-) I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your nomination and complimentary words on my RFA, as well as the note of congratulations! --plange 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It was my pleasure, I can assure you. It was very nice to be able to nominate such a worthwhile candidate as my first RFA nomination! I hope and trust you'll keep up the excellent work :) --kingboyk 10:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your comments. I will reply later, as I have to work. (Yeah, it's true...) I apologised to Chuck, and I hope he comes back. --andreasegde 11:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Has he gone too? Oh my! --kingboyk 11:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This may sound silly but do you know anyone that's really nifty at drawing, and real professional so to speak? LuciferMorgan 23:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't sound silly, but I'm intrigued! I don't know anyone on wiki, no... What's it for? --kingboyk 10:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A logo for a Project I'm doing... I personally can't draw to save my life. LuciferMorgan 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kingboyk,

Thanks for your help with the plugin and everything.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 15:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yo, awesome one. I just noticed the project banner above has terms for how to use the assessments, but have no idea how to indicate the class of an article. Your humble servant begs for a clarification which even is own permanently addled brain may comprehend. I'll try to start tagging the appropriate articles as soon as I am calmly and patiently told how to do so. Thank you. Badbilltucker 22:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like it's:

{{WikiProject Cats|class=FA|importance=Top}}

where FA could be Stub, Start, B, GA, A or FA

and importance can be left blank, or be Low, Mid, High, Top

Give that a try. Hope that helps! :) --kingboyk 22:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• He's baaack. Just wondering if there would be any way to add a peer review line to the existing banner above. I'm setting up a peer review page for the project but don't know how to add the line to the template. Badbilltucker 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kingboyk, there is an editor going around deleting infoboxes from bios (because he thinks infoboxes are "silly"). He put a comment on my talk page. I have copied it and replied on his talk page at [4]. He seems out of touch with what is standard now, and it might help if you as an Avatar of the bio projects step in and help out with the discussion. Also if you can give my reply to him a "sanity check" and let me know if I said the right thing, was civil, not too grumpy, etc. that would be good. I will apologise to him if you think I have been out of line. SuperGirl 08:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We can't force these things of course, but I think there is a consensus to use infoboxes. The important thing is to try and remain civil - not always easy - and it's very nice to know you see that too :) I'll check it out. --kingboyk 10:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooh. I can't resist butting in here. :-) I too think infoboxes can be silly, but I think this is invariably due to design and layout problems. Some people try to force a standard layout of infobox on all authors, all scientists, all musicians, etc. I think that infoboxes should be as flexible as possible to suit the needs of a particular article. I know some people want to generate meta-data from them, but if a particular parameter is nonsensical for a particular person's article, then it should be dropped, rather than adding it in for the sake of completeness. Meta-data should be just that - meta, and not intruding on the reader's reading experience. A good infobox will summarise only the most relevant points (kind of like a tabular form of the lead section), and won't distract the reader with trivial stuff. Carcharoth 03:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I don't think you were incivil but perhaps a touch confrontational :) No need for censure. Your points are fair except I wouldn't agree that infoboxes are "policy", I think they're more "guideline". I think there's consensus to use them - at least I've never seen consensus to not use them - so clearly the best way forward is to address the concerns of users like Carcharoth who have specific objections. Some infoboxes are simply over the top, I'd agree too.(In fact I reverted changes to an infobox used on an article I was heavily involved in writing only this week; the new infobox had the same level of info as the older one but took up more screenspace and used a ghastly colour scheme!) It would, I'd venture to suggest, be most productive to work on getting boxes we can mostly all agree on rather than going through the yes/no debates again :) --kingboyk 16:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have some ideas that you should think about (and I will not back down about this... :)

• Vera, Chuck, and Dave must be back on board, because he's great to work with and personally I need his help, and advice.
• Kingboyk must also come back because of the above.
• Prove to everybody on Wikipedia that it is possible for three (or more) editors to work together on one article. Now - that's a challenge. Are you up for it?
• Finish the bloody article, and then we can decide what to do. "Don't leave a job half-finished."

We all have some stylistic questions (who doesn't?) but those can be resolved on the talk page - and I really mean resolved...

I want to get back to work. --andreasegde 15:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree to that. May not be on wiki much today or tommorow, but I'm not off in a huff - have things to do. If you can come up with an alternative structure (e.g. decade by decade + some other sections) in the meantime please do. --kingboyk 19:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful news. I actually agree with your revamp of the page (and no, I will not talk about the earlier disagreements about how, and why) but I have moved his "Zenith" guitar/songwriting to before The Beatles, because it flows nicely. (Kick me if I'm wrong...) We have a problem with Linda though - because she was his wife, but she was also a part of solo/Wings. How do we sort that one out?

BTW, I always believed it could be better than a B, but I share your faith that it can be an FA. It would be wonderful, and it could show the way for others. This is ground-breaking stuff. If we work out the formula as to how it should be done, and by repeatedly advising other editors on The Beatles pages, we could have FAs by the dozen. (I have to take a bit of a break as well.... BTW...) I wish you all the best. --andreasegde 18:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be an FA. Of course it can - interesting subject, no shortage of sources, lots of editors.

I'm not entirely sure about the structure (ironically), just oppose having subheading after subheading. Two things about the straight chronological approach though 1) it might not be conducive to high quality writing (in 1965 he did this, in 1966 he did this, etc), 2) a volume of books could be written on Macca's life, and we have to do it in 50 to 100k. I think some sort of thematic structure is needed - whether it be mine or someone else's. We cover the highlights and the talking points of his life and career, his contributions to various genres and aspects of culture, his private life, etc., in summary, and support that with more detailed articles like Wings (band).

As for such things as Linda being a member of Wings, of course it was fixing things like that I didn't get to. We'll have to mention her in that section, but we save the detail about the marriage for the later section. There's no ban on mentioning things from other sections or introducing them before we get to that section, I think.

Now, is it safe for me to visit Macca's talk page or am I gonna be upset by lots of posts slagging me off? :) --kingboyk 15:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kingboyk: the delete link can be added back by adding

function addDeleteLink() {
    var targetSpan = document.getElementById('specialDeleteTarget');
    var linkSpan = document.getElementById('specialDeleteLink');
    if (targetSpan == null || linkSpan == null) return;

    var targetLink = targetSpan.getElementsByTagName("A")[0];
    if (targetLink == null) return;

    var targetTitle = targetLink.childNodes[0].data;

    var deleteHref = "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=delete&title=" + escape(targetTitle);

    var deleteSpan = null;
    with (easyDom) {
        deleteSpan = span({ "class": "plainlinks" }, " (", a({ "href": deleteHref, "class": "external text" }, "delete"), ")");
    }

    linkSpan.appendChild(deleteSpan);
}
addOnloadHook(addDeleteLink);

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mike_Dillon/easydom.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

to your personal js. Do you know of any other page to publicize this perhaps? —Mets501 (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man! I'll give that a try. I'd advise posting the detail at the relevant Mediawiki talk: page and perhaps a headsup at WP:AN? (since this is an issue of interest only to administrators). --kingboyk 15:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you just removed a comment from a user talk page [5]. I assume good faith on your part, but I'm wondering why it was removed. --BostonMA ^talk 12:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just look at my contribs and follow the trail... Email me if you need more info. --kingboyk 12:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what your reasons were for reverting my talk page since you failed to disclose them to me. However, I undid your reversion. What is your involvement in this matter that you would do such a thing? And why not inform me of your rationale. Is that not rude and arbitrary? Timmy12 14:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to move the situation from personalities to the issue, pending the checkuser. Sorry if any offence was caused. I thought it was trolling but might have been mistaken. --kingboyk 15:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Rosencomet states he is the exec director [6]. of ACE and also writes that Jeff Rosenbaum is exec director [7]. I'm not clear regarding what privacy issues there might be, however, does Jeff Rosenbaum article warrant an autobiography tag? --BostonMA ^talk 13:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, On Samir's page you wrote:

Not entirely sure either, but I doubt it. The ACE was founded by somebody called Rosencomet. A user of the same name claims in a public forum to be an executive director of ACE. It's quite reasonable to assume that the user is therefore claiming to be Mr/Ms Rosencomet, and have tagged the talk page to reflect that. It's probably not reasonable to extend that to Mr Rosenbaum's article, unless I've missed something. It's not hugely important anyway, at least not as important as getting neutral, balanced articles on encylopedically notable subjects. --kingboyk 15:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You may have missed something. Rosencomet claims to be the executive director, and he writes that Jeff Rosenbaum is executive director. It seems to follow that rosencomet has claimed to be Jeff Rosenbaum, whose article was largely written by rosencomet. --BostonMA ^talk 15:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I think it's too much to assume he's Rosenbaum when there's a guy called Rosencomet involved in the organisation. Perhaps there is more than one exec director, or they swapped roles or something. We're not detectives; if he was called User:Rosenbaum I'd agree with you but he isn't... :) --kingboyk 15:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm currently working on the Jackie Robinson article, trying to bring it up to GA-class. I'm only using one source at the moment. Would someone please help me in understanding how to reference page numbers from a single book source concerning this? TY.robertjohnsonrj 21:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I've reformatted it to display the book in the references section, and page numbers in the footnotes. This isn't the system I use in KLF articles as I generally cite a lot of different newspaper and magazine articles, but in this situation I think it's the way to go. HTH. --kingboyk 11:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions pertaining to single source citation references and of their page numbers. Also, I appreciate your attention to and relevant clean up of the Jackie Robinson article. I learned a lot just from reviewing your edits! Once again, thank you. robertjohnsonrj 15:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am attempting to add factual, relavent, notable, non-biased, cited statements and citations to this article to bring it up to at least GA status, or higher. I suggest a heading on his personal life (to include his marriage, family life and semi-political contributions to society). What do you think of this? robertjohnsonrj 16:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A final thought. How would a heading reguarding his personal accounts with racism and bigotry? Would this be too confrontational??? robertjohnsonrj 16:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think a section on his personal life is essential, provided it's very well referenced! I like the referencing work you've been doing so far, so I'm sure it would be.

I'm afraid I don't know anything about the man so I can't judge how important racism and bigotry were in his life. If they were very important and the sources mention it in detail it's your duty to report it. I can't say whether it would be best in the personal life section or in its own section; you'll have to ask elsewhere or make your own decision. Sorry! :) I'd be happy to take another look when it's closer to completion, though, since I am an entirely impartial and uniformed reader. --kingboyk 19:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kingboyk! Using your plugin for AWB I can add templates (of wikiprojects) on the talk pages, but is there any way to add a new template on the main namespace? Giro720 16:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not using my plugin, no. It's designed specifically for WikiProject templating. Sorry. --kingboyk 19:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Two questions 1) What is the difference between "Auto-stub" in template section vs "Auto-stub" in Configuration section? 2) Some times the plug-in is applying auto=yes even though there was no stub template. Would you know why? Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

All "auto stub" does is add auto=yes and class=Stub. It doesn't read the article. You should only run it on stub categories! --kingboyk 19:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk)

Hello fella, just thought I'd pop by to congratulate you on your continued successes with the project. Two more FACs and a DYK? entry, to say nothing of a relatively prestigious award for which we received no official credit! Take care dude. --Vinoir 15:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Lovely to hear from you man! I hope you'll be back some time; in the meantime you take care too. --kingboyk 19:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC) PS Yes, going OK. Have started to pull the individual Bill & Jim articles into shape; next FA target might be Chill Out.

Hi there. An AWB user told me you might be able to help with a query I have. You wouldn't have any ideas on how to take a long (1000+) list of articles and find all the redirects pointing to articles on that list, would you? I know AWB can spit out a list of WhatLinksHere for a single article, and even two or three or four. But can it cope with 1000+? The reason I ask, is that I want to detect all the redirects pointing at pages to do with a particular WikiProject, partly to see how many there are (I've found hundreds already) and partly to help fill in gaps and organise an index of redirects and so forth. The other thing is that the Wikipedia WhatLinksHere list marks the redirects. Does the AWB list also do this? Thanks for any advice you can think of. Carcharoth 03:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think AWB has a "what redirects here" but if it did, yes it could cope with that number. (I used AWB to tag the entire Category:Living people, which is over 100,000 articles!!)

I'd do that particular job in a webbrowser. Click what links here. Then click 50. For what links to my talk page, the link in the browser's address bar would change to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/User_talk:Kingboyk&limit=50&from=0 Manually change that to 5,000 articles (the maximum) by editing the address in the address bar: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/User_talk:Kingboyk&limit=5000&from=0. Then search for the word "redirect" using Ctrl-F.

The alternative is to ask Martin (at WT:AWB) to implement this feature (although I have a feeling I already asked him...). --kingboyk 15:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. I could do that for one or two pages, but doing the above a thousand times would be tedious. What I am hoping for is a simple way to take a list of pages, and instruct the program to look at page 1, generate the "what links here" list, look at page 2, generate the "what links here" list, and so forth, ending up with a long combined list of "what links here" for all 1000 pages. Then I would carry out the search for the "redirect" labels. Does that make sense? Carcharoth 23:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it makes sense, but on the other hand 5,000 what links here per page is a lot. I take it then that the issue isn't the number of incoming links but the number of pages for which you must check the incoming links??

I think you'll have to ask Martin, as what you're asking for is useful and reasonable but AFAIK isn't currently available in AWB or any other tool. It probably wouldn't be too difficult to program something to do this but I don't have the time at the moment. --kingboyk 10:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"I take it then that the issue isn't the number of incoming links but the number of pages for which you must check the incoming links?? - yes, that's it! Checking 1000 pages that only have (say) 20-30 incoming links each, of which 4-5 might be redirects. I'll try and ask at the link you gave me. Thanks for the help. Carcharoth 11:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I see the problem! If Martin can't help you might try asking around on the various technical and bot noticeboards, I doubt it would be difficult to program a script to do that and it would certainly be useful. --kingboyk 11:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good call! ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's nice, thank you! When I checked my user talk history and saw this topic I feared it might be a complaint, so nice to see it's quite the opposite :) I really appreciate it. --kingboyk 10:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't make up my mind about this one. It has a very strong smell of spam, but some people assert that it is more or less the "official" source for Starwood Festival performers lists. However, the whole idea here seems to be to confer a halo effect - paganism is notable therefore the Starwood pagan festival is notable therefore everybody who appears at the starwood festival is notable therfore their cat is notable and so on. Guy 10:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's definitely some of that going on, although it's far from being the worst case I've seen (see Nambassa which was spammed across dozens of articles). The difficulty I have is probably the same difficulty you have: I don't know enough about the subject to make a call, I don't know if the group is important or not and if they are important how important. One thing that has lead me to think it's best to walk on by is that after one revert and some discussion my trimming of Association for Consciousness Exploration has been allowed to stand. It's easier to assume good faith after that. I'm inclined to walk on by. --kingboyk 11:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the discussion on colour templates for infoboxes has moved to this page. We should get as many views as possible, maybe you'd like to contribute your 10p. Thanks - Coil00 00:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stephen. When you get the opportunity, could you check the Badfinger article for me? I am having trouble with a new editor adding a 'ton' of POV and typos to the article. I already did one revert and he apparently ignored the reasons I gave for reverting. Although this person appears sincere, he/she is ruining the article. Any help or suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. ZincOrbie 00:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Unfortunately this new editor is apparently unfazed by reverts and is proceeding full-steam ahead. I guess the best strategy now is to wait it out until his motivation wanes. ZincOrbie 22:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the AFD is re-run instead of your closure. That redlink is not going to last, you'll probably need a proper clean AFD to kill it off. I've commented on the AFD here and here and here. I really think a DRV would conclude in a re-run. - Hahnchen 17:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Empires. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. FalconXVI 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I placed my comment there as you know. Cheers. --kingboyk 22:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If you hadn't noticed a vandal put The Beatles up for deletion. As this is clearly vandalism I reverted to the article previous to the notice - however I realise that the notice is probably in the Wiki system and I need an admin to get it removed. I will argue that the lesser evil is to remove the tag from the article to avoid confusion, and then do the business with Wikipedia. I'm copying this note to Lar in case you are busy.LessHeard vanU 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he didn't create the AFD. I was about to block indefinitely but someone beat me to it. Plenty of rouge admins about today! ;) --kingboyk 22:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually he did create it but DakotaKahn had already deleted the AFD and blocked him :) --kingboyk 22:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will pop over to Lar and tell him to hold off.LessHeard vanU 22:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Stubclass has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Mets501 (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make the songs composed by George Martin for the Yellow Submarine movie redirects right now. Although I agree with you that the information right now is covered by the Yellow Submarine Album article, I think that enough information could be researched and added to the song articles for them to merit an artcle on their own. So please, when I revert the edits, do not re-revert them. Give me a little more time to make the articles worthwhile. NauticaShades 11:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles#George_Martin_songs_on_Yellow_Submarine. I'm well read on The Beatles and am far from convinced that it's possible to write worthwhile articles on those songs individually. --kingboyk 11:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed a comment I wrote here by mistake -- it was supposed to be on someone else's user page. Sorry! Hayford Peirce 16:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I was trying to work out what my involvement was: seemed to be pretty much zero. :) Never mind, thanks for clearing that up. --kingboyk 16:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I've left a message here regarding a very short trial I ran for the pluralisation system. Thanks, Martinp23 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If this person is editing articles you work on with the intention of doing it to annoy you rather than improve an article, I'd report him to an admin, especially if his edits are detrimental to an article rather than helping. LuciferMorgan 12:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea but hopefully it won't happen again. Did you review the changes? And, hey, thanks for the quick reply! --kingboyk 12:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I always reply soon as I get a message - if you get a slow reply it means I'm currently not browsing Wikipedia. LuciferMorgan 15:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of deleting this list, although it doesn't appear that there would be much point in bringing it up at AfD. I have been mulling this list over for a while, since it falls under WikiProject Guitarists. See also Guitarist, which is just another list, except this time by genre. I also want to remove all of that and make it an article about being a guitarist. Our project has at least one well-defined and sourced list, List of Telecaster players, and I think all such lists should be more like that. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess my AFD is gonna fail, so perhaps your WikiProject can take over the lists and do something good with them. Not sure what else I can say :) --kingboyk 17:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what utter asshole has been messing around with the "Influences" section in the Beatles article? It looked much better when Andreas last edited it, only now it looks like a pile of dog turd again. I have full intentions of pasting Andreas "Influences" section into the article from his last edit. LuciferMorgan 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but the entire section is ghastly and it's size is totally out of proportion. --kingboyk 19:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

By your comment "is it noteable?" should I take it that you don't think that sentence is noteable? --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 20:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the documentary. A "group of filmmakers" could be Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson and Alfred Hitchcock, or it could be a bunch of kids with a video camera! Let's see a citation from a reputable source which mentions the documentary. --kingboyk 20:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to User_talk:Secondaryschoolgirl. Thanks :) --lovelaughterlife♥ (user|talk) 00:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In reference to your message on my talk page (Don't stalk me: [8] I must apologise if I this is the inference you took. I took this action as an example to demonstrate to you that while you have vigorously pursued the Nambassa tag, your own edits seem to show some level of hypocrisy on these specifics. I believe you’re repeated reverting of the captions on the Nambassa photos is in most cases incorrect. (while some I have agreed too). The precedent is already set in many Wikipedia photos where in most cases where entertainers are concerned, the event and day of their performance is usually mentioned in the caption itself. Of many of the Nambassa photos throughout Wikipedia whose origins you have attempted to block, you actually bastardised ...for example Brownie McGhee. You did this previously and I had to follow in your wake of destruction and fix up. I must assume that you have some underlying philosophical axe to grind with Nambassa and if this be the case I am only too happy to ask Peter Terry to completely remove not only all the Nambassa photos, which I must conclude have given some colour and movement to many drab articles, but the Nambassa Wikipedia inclusion itself. Perhaps you would like to tell me why you are so persistent in not giving Nambassa a caption credit for it’s photo contributions- please advise?

On the question of The KLF article, it’s abundantly clear that many of the cited references supporting claims about this band and their individual members are quite soft on fact. In a purely professional sense it could be construed that the Library of Mu which is essentially a internet fan site, is soft on real proof.

I trust we can resolve this amicably….kindest regards Mombas 21:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Library of Mu, an Internet fansite, is a database of articles on the band from reliable sources. Also, should you feel any of the KLF articles don't meet FA criteria, nominate them for 'Featured Article Review' - don't be surprised when the FAR nomination is laughed at though. LuciferMorgan 19:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and yes I'm happy you want to talk about it amicably.

I have absolutely no axe to grind about that festival. Indeed, I've spent many happy times at a comparable event in the UK (the Glastonbury Festival). What I object to - and this ought to be obvious - is the wikilinking to that event from stacks of unrelated or vaguely related articles, and an obvious attempt at inflating it's importance (internal spamming, in other words). I feel that a caption saying what year is quite enough.

With regards to KLF articles, you were requesting citations where citations already exist and on articles which are Featured! There's absolutely no hypocrisy involved as the issue of citations is entirely different from the issue of inflated internal links. As Lucifer says, the Library of Mu is indeed a fansite but a library of press clippings. The links to articles on that site are provided as a courtesy and could even be removed without affecting the integrity of the articles, because the reputable publications (author, title, date) are the citations. The links are just a courtesy allowing the reader to peruse the entire article if they wish (so, losing the links would be regretable to say the least). If a reader wishes to examine the underlying source they'll have to track down the original media. The same goes for the articles I've cited which don't have a web reference (mostly these have come from ProQuest, a premium archive). This of course is perfectly normal: in my humble opinion, original print media (books, national newspapers, academic journals) ought to be preferable to online sources, and they always involve either the reader assuming good faith or going to a library and examining the original source.

Really you're barking up the wrong tree by choosing the KLF articles to identify flaws in my work: I've had 4 nominations for FA and all have succeeded. Nearly 10% of The KLF articles are Featured. Funnily enough, The KLF article which you attempted to add citation requests actually won best in genre at Wikimania 2006! I think I can say without falsely boasting that The KLF is the best documented band on Wikipedia bar none. --kingboyk 12:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Just, like, wow. --Guinnog 18:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? --kingboyk 18:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You've patiently helped him as I tried to do. He replied by blanking the page and calling it harrassment. I've seldom seen such breathtaking rudeness. I was going to point it out to him but got edit conflicted by your reversion. --Guinnog 18:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 hours. Does that seem right to you? --kingboyk 18:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems very fair. No doubt he will disagree. --Guinnog 18:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully he'll calm down and it'll be the last we hear of it... --kingboyk 18:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing a Pall Mall and a cup of coffee won't fix. However I am curious as to why you archived his talk page after only a half day of use? I didn't see the archived at first and it could have been useful. —MJCdetroit 20:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It was on WP:AN, with the appearance of being a well meaning user who had got off to a bad start. I tried to help him out. Silly me! ;) --kingboyk 20:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Could someone tell me for certain whether blanking talk page warnings merits a warning or not? I got my fingers slapped by a few editors for warning him against it, and now you've just blocked him for it. Now I'm just plain confused. yandman 20:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Messing around an uninvolved admin who tried to help, blatantly ignoring their warnings, and "joining" the community whilst acting like a bull in a china shop certainly warrants a "thinking time" block. Issuing block threats about removal of warnings you have issued yourself, about a dispute you're involved in, particularly if you're not an admin, is probably best avoided: ask a neutral third party to take a look (in this case me or Guinnog). Not many things on Wikipedia are fixed or certain, save for the basic pillars about NPOV and so on. This guy simply went too far and wasn't grasping or showing any willingness to grasp how we work round her (see Guinnog's comments above). --kingboyk 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The warnings weren't only issued by myself. Several others had warned this guy (just look at the history of his talk page...)
2. Why would Guinnog, who posted a warning on James' talk page before I did, be a neutral third party and not me? Because he's an admin?
3. "block threats"? They're the standard warning templates! The template says that "If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page". That seems rather self-explanatory. Or can normal users only use them against anon vandals?

I'm sorry if I'm being slightly agressive about this, but everyone seems to have assumed good faith on the part of this user, and assumed bad faith on my part. I wasn't tring to harass this guy, I just came across his modification spree on RC-patrol, and reacted (in my opinion) appropriately: warn the user, try to contain the damage, and make sure the warnings stay up so that subsequent vandalism is treated as it should. The problem as I see it is that this user hasn't learnt that ignoring consensus and changing 20 articles is bad, he hasn't learnt that libelling another user is bad, he hasn't learnt that trying to whip up opinion by spamming messages saying "(insert country here) deserves better than this!" is bad. No, he's just learnt not to refuse a gift (in this case, archiving a discussion about vandalism barely 20 minutes old) from an admin. Again, don't take this personally, but don't forget that there aren't just new users and admins here. There are also thousands of regular contributors who try to help out, but won't be trying for much longer if they see that they're ignored. yandman 08:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I told him not to ignore consensus, and I told him not to spam. I also gave him a block to think about these issues. As far as I'm aware I haven't complained to you about anything, so there's no need to be so touchy. --kingboyk 11:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought you blocked him because he removed the archive you made him. The Wr templates seem to be more contentious than I thought: For every user that tells me they shouldn't be used, another tells me they should. I still don't understand why you decided I wasn't a neutral third party and Guinnog was, though. yandman 12:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for taking the piss, basically. I think it's called "disruption" or "exhausting the community's patience". Honestly man I've hardly thought about your role in all this; newbie came to the admins noticeboard wanting help, I decided to help him on the understanding that he did have some lessons to learn and would learn them pronto, he threw it back in my face and got blocked. That's the extent of my involvement and I'd like it to be the end of my involvement too :) HTH. --kingboyk 12:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is all past history, but I disagree (amicably...) with a lot of what kingboyk is saying here. Talking the piss is not sufficient reason for blocking. From my point of view (necessarily not neutral) I saw an edit which I thought neither standard nor NPOV on the UK page; I looked for a discussion occuring before, during and after that change and found none (so there was no consensus); I reverted it and started a discussion; then I saw it was on all EU country pages and reverted them; I had no idea there was any centralised discussion or I would have started there first - there were no signposts to this anywhere; then I got flamed by a whole load of guys on my talk page, inlcuding some warning signs which; given (in my point of view) these warnings were without basis, and feeling both a) insulted and b) ganged up on, I removed the warnings; someone complained about this, I did some reading and saw that my own talk page is mine to edit (at least according to the official-looking pages I read); eveything went downhill from there!

As a non-admin I have very little way of protecting my own space and my own position. Nor do I have knowledge of all of the processes or standards of Wikipedia; you (the wider, more involved community) should not expect every casual editor to have such knowledge. You might have found it rude, for which I apologise as offence was not intended, but everything I read said that my talk page was mine to edit; I did not want Yandmans (in my view, misplaced and aggressive) warning signs to remain anywhere on that page. His actions did conflict with what I read on Wikipedia's Harrassment page. He and others thought me a vandal and the assumption of good faith went out of the window, leading rapidly downhill on all sides. I defended my position and would do so again.

Thanks, nevertheless for your time. JamesAVD 11:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In reference to your message on my talk page (Don't stalk me: [9] I must apologise if I this is the inference you took. I took this action as an example to demonstrate to you that while you have vigorously pursued the Nambassa tag, your own edits seem to show some level of hypocrisy on these specifics. I believe you’re repeated reverting of the captions on the Nambassa photos is in most cases incorrect. (while some I have agreed too). The precedent is already set in many Wikipedia photos where in most cases where entertainers are concerned, the event and day of their performance is usually mentioned in the caption itself. Of many of the Nambassa photos throughout Wikipedia whose origins you have attempted to block, you actually bastardised ...for example Brownie McGhee. You did this previously and I had to follow in your wake of destruction and fix up. I must assume that you have some underlying philosophical axe to grind with Nambassa and if this be the case I am only too happy to ask Peter Terry to completely remove not only all the Nambassa photos, which I must conclude have given some colour and movement to many drab articles, but the Nambassa Wikipedia inclusion itself. Perhaps you would like to tell me why you are so persistent in not giving Nambassa a caption credit for it’s photo contributions- please advise?

On the question of The KLF article, it’s abundantly clear that many of the cited references supporting claims about this band and their individual members are quite soft on fact. In a purely professional sense it could be construed that the Library of Mu which is essentially a internet fan site, is soft on real proof.

I trust we can resolve this amicably….kindest regards Mombas 21:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Library of Mu, an Internet fansite, is a database of articles on the band from reliable sources. Also, should you feel any of the KLF articles don't meet FA criteria, nominate them for 'Featured Article Review' - don't be surprised when the FAR nomination is laughed at though. LuciferMorgan 19:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and yes I'm happy you want to talk about it amicably.

I have absolutely no axe to grind about that festival. Indeed, I've spent many happy times at a comparable event in the UK (the Glastonbury Festival). What I object to - and this ought to be obvious - is the wikilinking to that event from stacks of unrelated or vaguely related articles, and an obvious attempt at inflating it's importance (internal spamming, in other words). I feel that a caption saying what year is quite enough.

With regards to KLF articles, you were requesting citations where citations already exist and on articles which are Featured! There's absolutely no hypocrisy involved as the issue of citations is entirely different from the issue of inflated internal links. As Lucifer says, the Library of Mu is indeed a fansite but a library of press clippings. The links to articles on that site are provided as a courtesy and could even be removed without affecting the integrity of the articles, because the reputable publications (author, title, date) are the citations. The links are just a courtesy allowing the reader to peruse the entire article if they wish (so, losing the links would be regretable to say the least). If a reader wishes to examine the underlying source they'll have to track down the original media. The same goes for the articles I've cited which don't have a web reference (mostly these have come from ProQuest, a premium archive). This of course is perfectly normal: in my humble opinion, original print media (books, national newspapers, academic journals) ought to be preferable to online sources, and they always involve either the reader assuming good faith or going to a library and examining the original source.

Really you're barking up the wrong tree by choosing the KLF articles to identify flaws in my work: I've had 4 nominations for FA and all have succeeded. Nearly 10% of The KLF articles are Featured. Funnily enough, The KLF article which you attempted to add citation requests actually won best in genre at Wikimania 2006! I think I can say without falsely boasting that The KLF is the best documented band on Wikipedia bar none. --kingboyk 12:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Serebii.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I want to work up a better article on this because it has a very high Alexa ranking (2,763) and it dominates everything in its field...the official Pokémon site in the US only has a ranking of about 9,000. Another big fansite I checked had 14,210. I will use one of my sandboxes (User:TrackerTV/KXRM1, KXRM2, KXRM3, KXRM4) to work on it. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 04:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy to do that. I will first check with another admin about how best to do it. Will contact you shortly. --kingboyk 11:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've userfied it to User:TrackerTV/Serebii.net. If you ever repost it (which I'm not endorsing by the way!), please Move the page back from your user space rather than copying and pasting because you now have the entire edit history in your user space. --kingboyk 15:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just messaging to say I've been restructuring the article in the hope it makes it easier to improve it. If I have the time I hope I can convert some of the lists into prose and add the odd inline cite here and there. After that, maybe then someone like Andreas (if he felt like that is) could weigh in with some stuff from books he may own. LuciferMorgan 14:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That reminds me, I was gonna post a request about recycling citations. Will do it now. --kingboyk 15:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for leading the charge on this issue. [10] Take care, FloNight 16:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice you have speedily deleted several categories, such as Category:Wikipedians born in 1993 citing WP:CHILD. I am a bit disturbed by this, given that this is merely a proposed policy and it is currently undergoing arbcom discussion. There were also several deletions and undeletions by youself and User:1ne, which might be construed as wheel-warring.

Also, I strongly suggest that you unblock User:Secondaryschoolgirl. Her username does not violate policy and although it is a sock, it fits under umbrella of allowable sock uses. Best, Irongargoyle 21:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

How so? What has the sock been used for? --kingboyk 11:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Following up on this. User:Secondaryschoolgirl's unblock request has been rejected by another admin. It's an inappropriate username and she's not demonstrated the need for a sockpuppet account. If however she does needs a legitimate sockpuppet account then she can create another one. I've no problem with that.

I have absolutely no problem at all with my admin actions being scrutinised, indeed whenever it's done in a civil and respectful manner I openly welcome it. Therefore, if you're still not convinced please post it for review on WP:AN or WP:ANI. --kingboyk 12:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The categories are on UCFD at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_born_in_1993, and I've posted that notice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikipedians_by_year_of_birth_categories. Please feel free to post the blocking decision for review too. --kingboyk 12:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate your reply. I think my main problem is that you cited WP:CHILD in the deletion summaries as opposed to citing an out of process repost, which would have been legit. The use of WP:CHILD makes it seem like you are POV-pushing with User:Secondaryschoolgirl. I appreciate that another admin reviewed this decision. I obviously don't agree with this decision because User:Secondaryschoolgirl has a clean edit history and it doesn't seem to violate any portion of WP:SOCK, but disagreement is fine (she really didn't have a chance for it to be used as a "role account" since it got blocked so quickly). I'm still baffled at how this user name is inappropriate even if WP:CHILD was in effect, aince A: WP:CHILD would only prohibit posting of personally identifiable information and B: Most people under 13 aren't in secondary school (at least in the USA). Anyway, I have no real interest in pursuing this further as the actions seems to have been done in good faith. I just wanted to bring the issues up to you. Best, Irongargoyle 18:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I must strongly disagree with your block of User:Secondaryschoolgirl. While the name isn't necessarily the best choice, it's no more revealing than a name like User:Vancouverguy (a former editor); in fact, it is less so, as she hasn't revealed anything about her location. She's hardly giving away her personal details here. Many users reveal that they are high schoolers, or that they are under 17. Is that a reason to block them? Not only that, but the username does not fall under any of the criteria for inappropropriate usernames on WP:USERNAME.

In addition, she isn't using the account for malicious or fraudulent purposes. She made it obvious that she was a sock puppet, and she made her reasons obvious - the account was there so that her Userpage edits wouldn't clog up her main account's contributions with endless Userpage tweaks. In my opinion, that's a perfectly reasonable use for an alternate account. It stops her main accounts editcount from being inflated, and makes her contributions history easier to search.

While it's obvious your block was done in good faith, I'm going to unblock her. I don't want to get into a wheel war here, but I think you're being a little heavy handed. If you have objections, please, leave a message on my Talk page. ♠PMC♠ 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I tweaked over your tweak. When I get an edit conflict, I normally think it's silly me clicking Save twice. BTW, the page is coming on, do you not think? --andreasegde 10:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's alright. I think I managed to get both our tweaks committed.

Yes, I think it's coming on brilliantly! Really wonderful. --kingboyk 10:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure an anon editor put in some cruft stuff about Ringo in the Macca lead on the talk page. By the way, you didn't stay from the Project for long Kingboyk! LuciferMorgan 15:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My arm was twisted to come back. I've only put the Macca article back onto my watchlist at the moment though. --kingboyk 15:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (PS: Re cruft: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. ;)

The Beatrice Mills McCartney link works now. I put the word 'link' in twice (sorry). LuciferMorgan 22:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Try {{inuse}} - Kittybrewster 13:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. I thought of that too - after hitting save :) Never mind, I'm done on big changes now and we generally edit sections only which reduces edit conflicts. Thanks for the tip though. --kingboyk 13:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You still working on Macca? Just wondering. LuciferMorgan 20:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it will be at a reduced rate for a while. Have a web development project I want to work on. Email me if you want to know more and about my situation. --kingboyk 15:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I presume from your comments on Mike's talk page that you would like to conominate him for adminship? If so, please add your nomination to the above page and then direct Mike to it. Tell him to answer the questions and then list the nom on the main RFA page per instructions.

If in fact you don't want to conom please let me know and I'll proceed with informing Mike that my nom is ready. Cheers. --kingboyk 16:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you very much for letting me know, that was very considerate : )

Second, I've finished the nomination, and I'll "drop a note" on his page letting him know about it.

(I keep having "this is so awesome" go through my head : )

Thanks again - jc37 23:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to reorder the supports of the three nominators into thread order... But then I realized there is no thread order, since you just "signed" for three people, "post-dating" the timestamps in the process. This is probably "no harm" in practice, since all three of you clearly intended to support (and personally I'd prefer that n-wise co-nominations were just mapped to one nom, and n-1 "ordinary" supports, but it's a horrible precedent to set in both respects. Would you mind fixing that up? (I shall leave what 'fixing up' entails to your own interpretation.) Alai 10:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't "voted" yet because he hadn't, as of that point, accepted the nomination : )

I went ahead and replaced the helpful vote with my own comments (not that much but the time is different). - jc37 11:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I realize that, and technically you shouldn't have. Nor should I, but I at least noted the fact. :) I wasn't expecting it to be any different ("per nom" kinda covers it), but your own signature, by your own edit, is the key point (and the correct timestamp is always good, too). Alai 11:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? You've lost me? You want to be counted as supporters don't you? --kingboyk 11:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, and thank you for taking care of that for me : ) - I believe Alai was just making a procedural comment (which I also appreciated). - jc37 11:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I've been noticing lately that some article talk pages are getting a huge number of tags - so many that they're hiding the talk discussion. By tags, I mean both WikiProject (WP) and non-WP tags, but mainly the former. I am considering proposing that all WP templates are all merged into a single template, where different options can be selected for different wikiprojects. This would also avoid the current degeneracy (in a physics sense) where the article is rated multiple times by different WPs. While I recognize that different WPs may want to rate the article differently, I have yet to see this in practice. I guess the importance tags would be a different matter. Can I ask your thoughts on the matter? Thanks. Mike Peel 12:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mike and thanks for the message. Perhaps it would be best to ask at WP:COUNCIL? My personal take is that although the idea has some merit and is well intentioned, the resultant template would be hugely complex. Rather than make things better, I think it might just be too complicated to work. --kingboyk 12:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - I'll start up a conversation there. Re: complexity - that is something I've been worrying about. I guess an alternative would be some sort of meta-template, something like the following:

{{TalkTemplate
| wikiprojects={{physics|importance=high}} {{WPBiography|priority=}}
| featured={{FAC}}
| goodarticle={{GA}}
| rating=A
}}

This could then set up a bar at the top of the page, which would reveal all of the tags in an appropriate order when the "show" button is pressed. It would also allow the trimming down in size of the various tags. What do you think? Mike Peel 12:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a better idea perhaps. Another solution is to ask the developers to make templates at the top of talk pages hidable? Or use some fancy div code for the templates? --kingboyk 13:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure we're on the same page... how had you in mind generating artist names from uncategorised articles? From infoboxes would certainly be feasible, though off the top of my head, I'd guess that the uncategorised articles are probably the ones missing infoboxes, too. Alai 18:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping you had an answer for that, as I have no idea! --kingboyk 11:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I might look at the infobox usage, if it's fairly high, this might be feasible. Alai 22:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you there at the moment, I want to transmit something to you for the Macca article. Lincher 18:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am now but it will be tea time soon. Just leave a message here or if you like you can email me. Cheers. --kingboyk 19:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll e-mail ... those are copyrighted texts and they are big chuncks. Lincher 19:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah OK. Sources? Lovely, thanks. --kingboyk 19:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hiya Steve,

Just wanted you to know that I have listed Fluke (band) on Featured Article Candidates and that the article currently has 1 comment (the issues within I have attempted to address) and 1 support :)

Martin Hinks 10:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I've seen that Martin. I haven't commented yet because I don't want to give token support and I haven't had a chance to read it in full since the nom. I hope I'll find the time before the nom closes. Cheers mate. --kingboyk 11:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I just want to point out that I am not trying to solicit support - just letting you knowas you've helped with the article :) Martin Hinks 14:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

hi,

i ripped the Beatles article assessment system for WikiProject Spiders in July or so, and got it to work after a fair amount of hacking. now someone from the Arthropod project has implemented it, too, and asked me how it's possible that the bot inserts the articles not all into a page Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Arthropods_articles_by_quality, but into subpages (/1, /2 etc.). I somehow managed this back then, but cannot remember how i did it. thx :) --Sarefo 13:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If I understand the question correctly (which I think I do), the answer is that Mathbot creates subpages /1 /2 etc when there are a certain number of articles. If the articles fit comfortably onto one page the bot makes just one page. Hope that helps. --kingboyk 16:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the Support I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, Kingboyk, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, Martinp23 14:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve, sme editors have written an article named Millwall Brick. This emanates from a Spoof Adverisment in Viz Comic and they are putting it in the Millwall F.C. article. I have reverted it twice, will you please intervene? Hope you're well. Best wishes, Jimmy.

Hi Jimmy. I'll look into that and have a chinwag with you later me old mate. Just doing some Beatles work at the moment then it'll be dinner time. --kingboyk 17:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Steve, It looks like I'm up against an admin and his little friends on this Millwall Brick crap. It is in my opinon defamatory. I have informed the "authours" of this nonsense that I will be sending a copy of this "article" to the Millwall Chairman Stewart Till.

I have 25 dates to play in the States, and when I get back, If Till hasn't done anything about it, you can rest assured that I can and will. Best wishes, Jimmy

I've had a look at Millwall brick and the thing is that it's quite well referenced. I don't see what you can do frankly. Wiki isn't censored.

May I ask what kind of tour you're doing? (Sorry if you've told me before). Are you actually in the Lion King?? --kingboyk 13:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve, got home last night or was it this morning? God you tell me, I hate air travel! Thanks for having a look at it, I've just read it and it's certainly a lot more neutral than before, they were "done over" by a female Millwall fan (cor, deadly!) and believe it or not, a Chelsea fan! No, I'm not in The Lion King, I play in a band, beats working eh? Thanks for your time mate, take care. Lion King 19:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey mate, it certainly does! I hope you had a good time! --kingboyk 14:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Steve, yeah it was good fun, it's always nice to be able to play live, very different from studio work, you get to see, hear and meet people. A lot of it was 15 min TV stuff where they ask silly questions (which of course in the time honoured tradition, receive silly answers) But it was nice to stand on stage and really open up! Very tiring though, still I've plenty of time to recover, nothing scheduled 'til mid December - good deal yeah? Take care, Lion King 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hey Kingboy, thanks for rating The Orb a class B and nom'ing it for GA.  :-) Wickethewok 03:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, voting seems to have started on new colors for the musical infobox artist. Since you seemed to be interested in the earlier discussions, I thought you might want to express your opinions. Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Proposed colour selections (The voting section is down below the proposals.) Xtifr _tälk 10:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh... the mysterious andreasegde. Clue 1: I'm named twice on Wiki. #2 I put my own name in two articles (not technically allowed, but I did it as they were factual.) #3 An anagram is a useful tool. #4 I once worked with one of Macca's keyboardists (uhhh... that's a dead giveaway.)

If you find out, leave a clue on my page. (This is like taking yer trousers off in public... :) --andreasegde 09:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to think to think about that then, probably after a few coffees... hmm... --kingboyk 10:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Methinks you have a connection to the Thompson Twins? --kingboyk 12:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a very "Savage" thing to say, without any sign of "Progress", but you get a gold star for your detective work. --Andrew Edge 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! And there's me thinking he was the famous Sean de Garde! Vera, Chuck & Dave 20:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh bugger, the truth is out. I'll never live this down... --andreasegde 04:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll find this funny; I have a student called 'Stephan' in my Austrian English class, but I think he looks like you (although I don't know if he does, of course) but I always call him "Kingboyk". He sits at the back and always gives good answers. (I have to explain this by saying that I give them all nicknames, because it's easier to remember who they are.) --andreasegde 05:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on some templates, and I've noticed that when one is placed under another, there is sometimes a gap, but sometimes not - could you take a look? An example is Charles, Prince of Wales - CPW joins to PW, whereas PW doesn't to DC... Could you possibly shed some light? Cheers - DBD^R 23:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

By changing cannabis (drug) to marijuana you recreated the redirect I fixed. Why? You clearly have enough wiki experience to know better, SqueakBox 17:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with redirects? Cannabis is a generic term, marijuana isn't. It's best to have them marijuana and hashish linked than only the former so that folks who don't know there's a difference can see that there is. --kingboyk 18:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How can you say we shouldn't get rid of redirects? It is policy to get rid of them and I cant believe you arent aware of this. There may be an argument for putting hash and marijuana instaed of cannabis but you have to get the marijuana redirect correct ie [[Cannabis (drug)|marijuana]]. I am trying to get rid of the marijuana redirects so when you add them it is unhelpful, and only really an understandable action in new users who dont know better. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Where's the policy that says we get rid of redirects? There's no such policy. --kingboyk 11:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be bloody stupid if there was a policy to remove redirects. Redirects are there to catch wider search terms, and to improve the likelihood of people reaching the wanted article. I know WP does remove some redirect pages... But it isn't the policy to remove all of them, but of course, its good practise not to link to redirect pages Reedy Boy 20:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Not if the target is a "redirect with possibilities" (i.e. an article could be there), in which case linking to the redirect is actually better in a way. Of course there are still issues, such as a link staying blue even when the target has been visited (not purple). --kingboyk 15:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you have a look at the above article? I'm mainly interested in whether or not I've set myself (and others who may wish to contribute) too huge a task by going back so early, and secondly if there are any copyright issues with using solely Lewisohn to populate the list (as a side note, I've dug out a few other Beatles books I have and will begin generously dishing out references in the next few days). Liverpool Scouse 17:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page. --kingboyk 13:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you search for Actors' Fund, the article won't come up. I'm new. Can you tell me here how to fix, or who to ask? This is a technical problem, I think. 23:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not Steve, he's busy, but our search here is not very strong. Any missing letters or funny chars may mess things up. What was the search string you entered? Try using the Google search to find it. (I can see that there is an article at the link you gave). Failing that, you can try asking your question at the technical part of the Village Pump. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kingboyk. I'm afraid I've found myself in a distinctly disagreeable situation - a user named User:Tasc had decided that he wishes to engage in a crusade against me, or my work (compare: My contribs vs his). I have so far seen no justifications for his revert edits, and therefore can see only persecution in his acts. Having read through his talk page, I can see that I am not the first to have been a victim of his unprofessional behaviour. I would really appreciate your swift help. Cheers & GB - DBD^R 13:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not Kingboyk, but he's quite busy and asked me to look in on a couple of hot items on his talk. I spent some time looking through some articles that you and Tasc have worked on. In many cases what I saw was minor changes in formatting or spacing, etc. that seemed harmless to me. In other cases I saw that Tasc changed things and then immediately changed them back. I'd agree that Tasc may be a difficult editor to work with, and that Tasc has had issues with other editors. But I'm not sure I'd characterise his activities as persecution of you, not quite. Perhaps I missed some specific changes (you only gave a link to contributions, often specific diffs are a better way to see the issue) that you had issues with though. Can you elaborate further? I realise it might seem irritating to you but is there a way to just let it go on by? Are these changes really destructive? I am not a Royals buff so the nuances may be lost on me. Hope that helps. Feel free to continue here or on my talk... I will help you if I can. ++Lar: t/c 21:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'd be interested in having SVN access for wikifunctions2.dll

I've been programming in VB .NET for over a year now, and have done a range of programs. College coursework ones (currently still working on my 2nd year project with a mysql backend), and am always looking to develop knowledge in programming and try new stuff

Love to help out with it - If i knew C# (i know syntax wise its similar), to a better standard, i'd offer to help Martin and MaxSem out with AWB.. But learning C# is a side point

Suppose to help with testing, i'll have to work out something to get User:Reedy Boy bot status... But thats a side point

Cheers

Reedy Boy 20:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

SVN read/write access granted on a trial basis. Details sent by email. Now get fixing bugs and adding features! :) --kingboyk 16:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Will start working from tommorow. Cheers Reedy Boy 20:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey do you know if anyone is doing the newsletter? it's almost time to deliver and it looks like no one has started yet... I see you're on break so you can't well... I left GPH a note. I myself can't take it on. Maybe the Beatles Project is a project whose time has come and went? If so maybe you and I need to do whatever needs doing to close it down, I dunno. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 00:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It needs more contributors. I would contribute but I don't know how to, as yet. It's too much to expect the same set of people to keep doing it. It 's also a bit too big for my talk page, so I'm glad I don't get it, but I do read it on other peoples' talk pages... I would suggest making it simpler, and sending it to all the 'drive-in one-stop' contributors. --andreasegde 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Andreasegde: if you want to help, I can set up the template for you and you can just start entering content. Someone else can edit it into shape... or just mention on the talk page what needs talking about this month in the project. Look at previous issues for inspiration about what to say. Hope that helps. Certainly trimmed down is better than none, feel free to hack away sections that aren't needed. ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you revert the Macca page? I'm not sure how to do it, with all that "reverted using pop-ups" stuff. Some loony has wiped it all, and has even left his e-mail address on there...--andreasegde 11:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --andreasegde 12:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to let you know that the Megadeth article is a FAC here, and as someone with a knowledge of the mighty FA process, as well as one that previously voted against this article back in August (before I got ahold of it), I'd like to ask if you could take another look at it, as it has been completely rewritten and cited. Thanks! Skeletor2112 05:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just needing your advice Kingboyk (or do you prefer Steve?) on musical biographies... a problem I come across a lot is the listing of a musician's influences and the instruments they prefer. Personally I find it trivia that should be deleted, but other editors re-insert such info. How do you suggest dealing with such info? LuciferMorgan 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Steve but if it's sourced, I'd leave it... influences are important. If it's not sourced, and sourced well, nuke it! ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The above reply is of little help... can you help Kingboyk? LuciferMorgan 21:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Steve asked me to pop in and deal with some of his active items... I thought that was a pretty straightforward answer and in line with policy. Are you looking for further justification for removing information? Do you have some specific examples of very crufty info that has been added where discussing it on the talk page failed to resolve the matter? Hope that is of some help. ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the thing is in a lot of articles there's "So and so likes blah blah, and blah" which reads real crufty. In most cases, when influences are discussed it comes across as real crufty. Also, when it says "So and so plays a Fender, a Gibson" etc. that comes across as crufty too. Also, discussing issues on talk pages fail to resolve anything on Wikipedia - I've learnt that numerous times. I'm trying to work on something when I have the time which is in my sandbox here. LuciferMorgan 22:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"So and so likes X" is WP:OR unless sourced, and not very encyclopedic. If on the other hand it said "so and so cited Eric Clapton as a seminal influence [1]" "1 - Rolling Stone interview aug 03 1999 issue" thats different. Nuke the first, keep the second. ++Lar: t/c 00:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't mentioned regarding the instruments bit. LuciferMorgan 18:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds crufty to me. Unless there is some citable reference to the instrument (as being influential), how does it matter? Some significant percentage of guitarists play Fender guitars after all... I'd nuke that. Do you have a specific article that might be useful to look at? I'm not sure what exactly you wanted Kingboyk to help you with so maybe I'm missing the mark. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The specific article is in my sandbox here. LuciferMorgan 20:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Now you're back Kingboyk, what's your advice on what I originally asked for advice for? LuciferMorgan 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Caught someone screwing with your userpage.. spurned lover? ;) Deizio talk 00:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... No comment! :) --kingboyk 06:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Steve, your an admin that I know (kind of) so I thought you'd be good to ask. Where would a person make general suggestions to wikipedia about operation? I seriously think WP should consider locking articles while they are FAs. I opened the Macedonia (terminology) article last night when my daughter was in the room, only to be subjected to a vandal's large depiction of his favorite attribute. Has locking FAs been discussed at all? I'd like to vote "yes" if it comes up to a vote. Thanks. ZincOrbie 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably it wouldn't fly Kent, because of the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" mantra. However, I suggest making the Village Pump your first port of call. Hope that helps. --kingboyk 20:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We need your vote on Macca's talk page about which section to fork. (1,000 words less and we have it in the bag...) --andreasegde 05:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, that article looks fishy to me, since you are an admin and WikiProject Musicians participant, maybe you can take the appropriate measures. I am not sure what to do about it. Cheers, BNutzer 15:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind knowing why you deleted User:Xkeeper/Mario_Adventure, since there is no reason given and (ironically) it was moved there by an admin as per my request.

Could you damn admins make up your mind on what you're supposed to do and what not? --72.193.66.186 --Xkeeper 19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read the TfD before closing it?

If it's broke, fix it.

It can't be fixed.

The "cartoonish" assertion is news to me and nobody complained at FAC.

There are a lot of complaints on the template's talk page, for one.

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion clearly says that templates should be deleted if "redundant to another better-designed template". We have a whole category of redundant quotation templates which provide the exact same function. Which should be kept? — Omegatron 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion has been made on the John Lennon talk page about how much information should go in. It would be nice of you to add a comment, if you wish to... --andreasegde 14:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I request a few categories for it to run on? I've done at least 500 talk pages taggins with AWB in the past few days but theres still about 2500 (inc. possible duplicates) to go. RHB 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been running through the Category:Peers, pretty much none are tagged with WPBio on talk page and theres around 3000 articles. Two specific larger categories would be a great help - Category:British barons and Category:Life peers. Thanks, RHB 18:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a move template and proposed the move by the book for List of trains in films. Since you had expressed this wish in the AfD, I thought I'd let you know. I hope it gets moved soon. Hoverfish Talk 20:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

An image you uploaded, Image:Cheltenham coat of arms.gif, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 08:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to be on the bot approvals group, and since you yourself are in the group, it would be great if you can stop by and either support or oppose my request. Thank you! —Mets501 (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem that I would like to impart to all you good 'Beatles project' editors, and it is this:

• Should anything directly Beatles-related be in the main Beatles' article, and only 'personal' stuff put into the Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr articles? I have the disturbing feeling that I'm repeating stuff in both Lennon and McCartney articles that should only be in the main article.
• But... if only personal stuff is included in the individual Beatles' articles, would it make them too confusing/random, to read?

Please answer (on a stamped and self-addressed postcard please) on our talk page. (This might be more interesting than talking about MBEs... :) andreasegde, Mr Hornby, and Sir Sean de Garde 15:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you are receiving this message, you are currently listed as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music. We need more active members at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music. So please tell your friends who like electronic music and are willing to put in hours writing about it. If there are any suggestions for features for this Wikiproject I will help out with them and see what I can do. Please add any projects you are working on to the list - I will gladly help out with them as best I can. Since the original project founder has been MIA for 9 months or so, I'm declaring myself pseudo-king and cheerleader of this Wikiproject. Basically, that probably means that I'm just going to do the most work related to this project for now. Please tell your wiki real-life friends who are interested in electronic music about this wikiproject! We need active members! Wickethewok 11:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe the link at the top of your talk page that marks it as a talk page, is broken. It's in the "This is a Wikipedia user talk page" section. Excuse me if it's supposed to be like that. Dsnider 23:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kingboyk, I hope you're well. This is an article I've been working on over the past few days, and I wish to get it to FA status. I've been told it needs a copyedit, and the lead needs work. Since you've worked on a few music related articles, can you help me out in any way? Thanks for anything you be able to offer. LuciferMorgan 19:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made a request for membership on the bots approval group. I have received only one response by User:Mets501, who suggested I drop the group a line[11] and let you know about my request. Thanks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions in the article :) If you can, please read it again and try to eliminate mistakes / weasel words (clean it up).

Thanks again. Detlef ^♪♫∆ 01:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I noticed that you made the templates for Wikiprojects Beatles and Biography. I'd like to start an assessment/priority rating scale fo my wikiproject, but have no idea how to add the code in the template. How ould I go about doing that?--Wizardman 17:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Kingboyk, I've just been fiddling with the above template, and have been by and large successful, except that the template seems to default to being hidden - could you persuade it to act contrarywise? Cheers – DBD 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.

By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Kingboy! I was just wondering if you are a still part of the albums assessment project, because we have a massive backlog of unassessed articles? I read your note about starting another wiki with "naked sleeves" and was wondering how a person would create a wiki? Also, how do you get your userpage to have a different font than Arial? Thanks. Real96 01:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the font of my userpage, because I looked at your text to the page. Real96 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You have gone from the KLF to The Beatles to The Wombles in a couple of months ?!

My dear old friend, are you slipping down the same old slope as me ? LOL. Keep on messing up the scene, same as me.

Derek R Bullamore 01:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Wombles are a step down from The Beatles. Oh, that's a lie. I actually love you--Orinoco 17:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Steve. Hope you're keeping well both as I write this and as you read it. That's not to say I don't give a frig about all the time between those two points! .. or afterward. Aaaaaanyway.. I'm stealing your {{WPKLF}} template verbatim. Well, that is to say that I'm stealing the last working version of the 21st of September, 2006 and I'm going to replace any relevant text etc.

If I fuck it up and it affects anything relating to The KLF or whatever, please let me know/offer assistance asap. Cheers and come back soon! --Mal 04:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you and your colleague still supporting this plugin as there appears to be little or no movement on the plugin pages. Thanks :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Yes we are

I've been engaged with exams, and Steve has had other commitments. Tonight we made some headway on the migration to the new (ie the current SVN version) of AWB. A few bugs have been fixed that have been found with the new versions, but we still have some code for the loading and saving of the XML files. Hopefully, fingers crossed, we should be able to release a new version working from the latest version of AWB. Reedy Boy 21:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: User:Kingboyk/Sandbox Reedy Boy 12:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Robert Benfer. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Esn 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ARE YOU LYING BECAUSE I CANT FIND ANYTHING ABOUT IT.74.195.3.199 02:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)