User talk:SEWilco

SEWilco Commentary.

• It probably is a good idea to include a link to whatever article you are referring to.
• Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.

This user's activities on Wikipedia have been restricted by illegal[1], unreasonable[2], and arbitrary[3] ArbCom restrictions [4] and enforcement[5][6].

Archive: November 4 2005

...saw the flags there, and because I know of the SEWilco-flag-template-initiative [ :-) ] I wanted to change them. But how? I will watch the page, so maybe just change some, and if I see your work I do more. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i was at Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template - but where is the list of all the codes? I saw it some days ago, can't remember where. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

still did not find it. instead the obscure Country_code is the usual country identification code - what does usual mean? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Usual" depends upon which country code is relevant to the specific template. IOC, ISO, or country name. Want to edit it to "appropriate" or some other general phrasing? (SEWilco 04:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

i rephrased: Country_code is the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code and for the flagIOC template it is the IOC country code. see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template/Testall Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

done - the flags are changed, i found the "flagicon". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chapter reference has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Chapter reference. Thank you. Phil | Talk 10:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chapter reference link has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Chapter reference link. Thank you. Phil | Talk 10:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book reference edition has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Book reference edition. Thank you.

If you are interested Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation#RFC on Winter Soldier Investigation TDC 18:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help with this template? I'd like to make parameter 3 utterly optional. For an example, see entry 33 in Herzgruft (Vienna). --StanZegel (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but now it never displays at all. See Template talk:Bioxref and Imperial Crypt Vaults for examples that formerly worked but no longer do. In Herzgruft (Vienna), all the entries except number 33 should display the →Family Tree hyperlink, but now none of them do. Help! --StanZegel (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I omitted a pipe symbol separator. Try this version. (SEWilco 06:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your help! --StanZegel (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your question on my talk page—GraemeMcRae^talk 06:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied again by creating two pairs of ref_label and note_label, letting the third parameter default. Please see my talk page, and try out the links.—GraemeMcRae^talk 06:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied again to thank you for making this change -- it is just the cat's meow!—GraemeMcRae^talk 07:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be a principle editor on the effort, please allow me to direct your attention to my comment at Template talk:Harvard reference. I have this page and that watched, so prefer any ensuing discussion in one of those two locations unless you greatly prefer to use my talk page. Thank you. --Kgf0 22:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am improving the citation technologies, but {{harvard reference}} is so far an independent effort created recently by one fellow. There are several problems with its design and implementation. (SEWilco 05:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hi SEWilco. I just ran across your trick for inserting an apostrophe next to closing italic apostrophes over at autism. It's clever and I'll add it to my toolbox.

Just a quick note, though—watch out for interlanguage links to the other wikis that contain Unicode. Your browser seems to have run into some trouble with them: [7]. I fixed those up, but keep an eye out for the problem in the future. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vim, actually. I'll add yet another setting and see if that helps. (SEWilco 05:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Ah, Vim. /me gets wistful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An edit of yours to Arsenal F.C. on Nov 12 at 15:58 managed to munge the Unicode characters there as well - see [8]. Just thought you should know... Qwghlm 15:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'bot has just caused my watchlist to explode. That's what I get for citing sources, I suppose. ☺ Uncle G 11:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain. (SEWilco 14:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hello - I would like to create a navigational template, but it will need to be able to branch depending on the name of the article it is in. I know the "toccolours" class causes the template to vary its behavior this way. What I would like to do is have a "title" in the template which jumps you up the heirarchy, and a list of topics one level down from the title, of which the article you are in is one. It should be in black, indicating "this article" but then for this article only, I would like a list of subtopics to appear. So the logic would be like "if this article is named "xxx" then display the following list of subtopics". Is there a way to do this? Thanks for any help - PAR 06:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to accomplish? Maybe there are several ways to accomplish the goal. (SEWilco 06:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

There is a heirarchy of wikipedia pages. page A has 3 subordinate pages A1, A2, A3. page A1 has 4 subordinate pages, A1a, A1b, A1c, A1d and so forth for A2 and A3. I would like a box in the upper right corner of, lets say page A2. Its title would be "A". Under it would be a list: A1, A2, and A3. Under A2 is another list: A2a, A2b, A2c. No such lists under A1 or A3. All would be linked to their respective pages except A2 which would be in black, because its the page you are on. The purpose is to be able to jump up the heirarchy, across the heirarchy, and down the heirarchy. The box on page A2 would look like

A (link)

A1 (link)

A2 (no link - black)

A2a (link)

A2b (link)

A2c (link)

A3 (link)

The box on page A1 would look like

A (link)

A1 (no link - black)

A1a (link)

A1b (link)

A1c (link)

A1d (link)

A2 (link)

A3 (link)

I wonder if this can be done with one template or do I have to write a separate template for each page? PAR 17:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "no link" is done automatically for the current page so that is not a problem. It looks like you might need something like {{navmenu_A_{{{PAGENAME}}}}}, which should retrieve whatever template is at [[Template:navmenu_A_{{{PAGENAME}}}]]. For all the "A2" pages you have a single template with all their navmenu_A_* templates containing a #REDIRECT [[Template:navmenu_A_(name of an A2 menu)]]. (SEWilco 19:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Ok - I hope you have patience with me - I guess I don't understand the "if equal" template. That third parameter is completely opaque to me. Could you take a look at the box in the upper right of the Thermodynamic potentials article. This is where I am trying to do it. Click on "edit" and it will show you my latest attempt. I think you will see what I am trying to do, for starters. Thanks for your help. PAR 02:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "if equal" only is able to test for specific values of the third parameter. If you look at what I described above, I think you don't need a template with logic in it, you just need a template which retrieves one of several navigation templates. (SEWilco 04:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Or put the appropriate nav template on the appropriate page. (SEWilco 04:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

PS - is there a central page for learning template syntax?

No. (SEWilco 04:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, I should not have given you the impression that I ignored what you wrote. I spent a lot of time trying to make PAGENAME give me the name of the page I was on. After about a half hour, it dawned on me that maybe you meant by PAGENAME a parameter of the template call, and this was not some system variable that was magically being handed to me. So thats what three braces mean! After a couple hours of blindly trying this and that, I wrote you again.

I hope you understand now the deep level of my ignorance on this subject and why a few words from you can save me hours of stumbling around in the dark.

With regard to what you wrote, I don't get it. I understand that {{navmenu_A_{{{PAGENAME}}}}} when I am in the A2 page will insert the instructions in the template named Template:navmenu_A_A2. But then you say "For all the "A2" pages you have a single template with all their navmenu_A_* templates containing a #REDIRECT Template:navmenu_A_(name of an A2 menu)." OK, "all the A2 pages" means the A2a, A2b, A2c, and A2d pages. So the above translates for the A2a page -

"For the A2a page, you have a single template with its navmenu_A_A2a template containing a #REDIRECTTemplate:navmenu_A_A2menu

I have read the above statement over and over, but I still haven't the faintest idea what it means. Could I impose upon you to enter something into the Template:Thermodynamic potentials and maybe a few sub-templates just to get me started? I will learn it as quickly as I can, but right now I'm baffled.

Thank you for any help - PAR 06:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to use of Wikipedia:Redirect to make several pages produce the same template. I'll be busy for about 20 hours now. (SEWilco 09:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hello - just to let you know, I solved it using the iftrue template and passing a parameter from the calling page whose name is unique to the calling page. Set that parameter equal to "true" on the calling page, and then in the template, test the parameter with iftrue to either display the list or not. PAR 21:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Welcome, Template Master. (SEWilco 05:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry for nagging again. I dived a little into the template code of Template:Book reference and found that there is an undocumented ref creation mechanism in the template that relies on the *Last* and Year parameter. So my proposal to eliminate First Last would have broken that, right?

I understand that this is an important (yet not documented) feature of the template and in light of this the Last parameter has far more weight than can be inferred from the template doc – it is used to address the reference. In fact, the tuple (Last, Year) addresses the reference.

So maybe we might attack the problem from the other side and even impose the rule that the Last parameter should always be mandatory (also in the case of multiple authors) because it is used for addressing. In the case of multiple authors, the surname (or dominating part) of the most important author's name should be assigned to the parameter "Last" and the rest of that author's name to the parameter "First" (which is a bit confusing, but anyway).

The second and all subsequent author fullnames then sould go to mmh what? They can't go to Author, because it's either Author or (First, Last) that's used in the template, not both. So, maybe that would mean introducing another parameter "CoAuthor" (or whatever) to receive the second and all subsequent author's names. Should CoAuthor replace Author?

I think I can see the dilemma a bit better now (if I'm right). Sorry again for stressing you and thanks for your work on book reference.

— Adrian | Talk 14:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't add authors to "First" nor "Last" because a different display order may become preferred. A "coauthors" parameter does sound like a good idea for additional authors. The html "ref" issue hadn't occurred to me. That was recently added by one person's citation experiments. I'm more interested in identification of author name components for display, at the moment. There are various proposals for additional support for referencing and citation, which may move the information from templates to a database. Having the information identified in templates will make it easier to transfer to a new medium. (SEWilco 16:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Right. I wouldn't stuff more than one author into ("First", "Last"). So we could do (proposal):

*{{Book reference  | First = Martin  | Last = Fowler  | Authorlink = Martin Fowler  | Coauthor = [[Kent Beck|Beck, Kent]]; Brant, John;  [[William Opdyke|Opdyke, William]]; Roberts, Don  | Year = 1999  | Title = Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code  | Publisher = Addison-Wesley  | ID = ISBN 0-201-48567-2  }}

Implemented as "Coauthors" to emphasize that multiple authors are OK. (SEWilco 06:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Fowler, Martin, Beck, Kent; Brant, John; Opdyke, William; Roberts, Don (1999). Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code, Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-48567-2.

Wow, thanks! — Adrian | Talk 09:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Evidence. You may make proposals and comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Workshop. Fred Bauder 20:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SEWilco. I feel free to call on you since you modified my recent clarity edit of this article -- a good way to get acquainted. Anyhow, as I just wrote in the article's talk page, the latter parts of the article are exactly right for also being clarified, with at least some of their content being moved to a footnote or to the talk page. I certainly lack the expertise to do it -- and I don't really care whether it gets done or not, since I'll just ignore it anyhow. My point would be, how much value do we Wikipedians place on cleanness of our guideline articles? This one doesn't seem good enough to me. But I like the first parts very much, as I wrote (sort of) on its talk page. I hope you can agree that my attempts had a positive effect, and I hope I didn't foul up anything. If I did, please fix it (or get someone else to). For7thGen 19:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a request, which refers to you, to re-open the climate-change Arbitration case, here. I thought that you might be interested to comment, or at least observe.

Yours sincerely,

James F. (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Things get so messy when people don't follow the rules. Maybe this will end on April 1st. (SEWilco 04:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

As far as the Signpost goes, I generally don't report if it hasn't been accepted. But, yes, it looks like I might have to next week. Thanks for pointing it out though, and I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier- I thought it was a personal comment, based on my blocking of Connolley earlier that week, rather than a Signpost-related thing. Ral315 (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I hadn't noticed that you had also beeen involved in enforcing his parole or I would have phrased it differently. (SEWilco 05:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Mention in Signpost might be needed to help locate all the parties involved in the case and enforcement situation. (SEWilco 05:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I've thought more about reader navigation of multiple references to the same footnote, such as navigating the 5 references to footnote [2] in Wikipedia:Footnotes. It might be a little hairy for some readers. As mentioned in that talk page (Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Multiple references to the same footnote), I like having all the multiple references be in the footnotes section, for easier future maintenance. The article currently also mentions easier navigation for the reader. So I moved all the multiple references to the footnotes section to really see it for myself, and you can see it too at User:For7thGen/subpage 1. You can decide it, if you can get to it despite the other demands on your time. (I'm VERY interested in global warming myself, if that's the climate change involved, above.)
That is, you can decide whether anything further should be done with this footnote-section idea. I'll be doing other things so I won't concern myself about this topic unless I hear from you. I'll be very happy if most of my changes to the article are found acceptable, but won't even put the article on my watchlist. For7thGen 21:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can see multiple footnote referencing in Jew and Alchemy. It might be better to rephrase to avoid sensitivity to the footnote number, so adding footnotes to the article won't break numbering. In some cases you could just say "a preceding footnote" (followed by the link to it). Another possibility is to have the referenced footnote start with a word or phrase which you can mention when referring to it. (04:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

Hi SE, I read on AN/I that this is your bot, [9] and I was wondering whether there was a consensus to change these embedded links to footnotes. As you know, either is allowed according to WP:CITE and we're not supposed to change from one to the other without gaining consensus on the talk page, unless I've misunderstood what you're doing. And if it's not you, my apologies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was no existing style for links to citations, so I used the most popular method when I added citations. (SEWilco 17:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

SE, sorry to trouble you with this again. Another editor has drawn my attention to this. WP:CITE says you must defer to the citation style used by the first major contributor, unless there is a consensus on the page to change it. See Wikipedia:Cite sources#How to Cite Sources, which says: "If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references. If no agreement can be reached, the style used should be that of the first major contributor." I understand that you're keen on footnotes, and although I've personally never seen the attraction of them, I'm very willing to be proven wrong, and I respect that you're willing to devote time and energy to helping with WP's sourcing issues. I wish more editors would do that! But please try to see that there are advantages in other citation styles too, and edit warring to replace other styles with footnotes isn't appropriate or fair to the other editors on the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention was drawn to the wrong edit. This edit was the actual conversion of the consensus style to more complete citations, using numbered links to mimic the consensus linking style. The edit to which you linked is based on Vsmith's recent non-consensus style, which as pointed out several times in Talk is fragile in ways which are demonstrated by errors created by Vsmith. There are now versions using both citation styles in History in case the numbered style continues to be preferred. (SEWilco 17:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by the "most popular" method. If there is one, it's using embedded links, not footnotes. But the important point is that WP:CITE, which is the relevant style guide, has no preference, except that the citation style used by the first major contributor must be adhered to in the event of a dispute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Except when Wikipedia policy, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability requires a change. (SEWilco 06:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

When would any WP policy e.g. WP:V require a change in citation style? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Changes in policy could require many changes. (SEWilco 21:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Something has changed that mkaes these template display incorrectly (mabye a software change- since they looked fine last week), see Canberra for an example. Any idea how to fix them?--nixie 04:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the appearance are you referring to? A change was not apparent when I looked. Is there a problem with a specific link? (SEWilco 17:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I have files an RFC against you: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco. William M. Connolley 22:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

SEW, you've now reported user:William M. Connolley 11 times since November 15 for alleged 3RR violations, some of which are over a month old. This is starting to look like malicious reporting, and you may be blocked for disruption if it continues, though by all means report a new violation if you see one. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users are supposed to report 3RR violations, have these violations of the parole already been reported? The parole terms are defined at William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles. You seem to have an issue with how many times William M. Connolley has violated his parole. (SEWilco 16:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Has the ArbComm stated a rule on handling of parole violations someplace which I have not seen? (SEWilco 16:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Not that I'm aware of, but violations should be reported sooner. In future, you should probably either report them within a day or two, or let it be. Also, it might make more sense if you were to report them on WP:AN/I as parole violations rather than on the 3RR page, as they're not, strictly speaking, 3RR violations. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please stop robotically replying to comments on the 3RR page as well. It's become obvious no admin is going to take an issue with these reports where the incident was more than a month ago. At least by #8 or #9 you were asked to stop and you're still doing it. SchmuckyTheCat 03:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because you posted your 13th report against William Connolley, also for an alleged violation that took place in October, after being warned not to, you have been temporarily blocked from editing. If you feel this is unfair or incorrect, feel free to e-mail me using the link on my user page, and I'll get straight back to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe it is right to tell me to post in AN/I and then block me for that posting? (SEWilco 04:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Do really believe that's what actually happened? --Calton | Talk 08:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently SlimVirgin forgot WP:AN/I is not WP:AN/3RR. Part of the discussion in AN/3RR is based upon an assumption that 3RR will be reported soon after the event. SlimVirgin brought that assumption over to AN/I and applied it without discussion. Clarification from the ArbComm has been requested. (SEWilco 16:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Interesting new spin: you now implicitly acknowledge that ignoring stale 3RR reports is okay; yet, you apparently forgot that you continued posting them there and demanding action long after it had been made clear to you that they would be continue to be ignored. Now you've ginned up a brand-new wikilawyering theory to get your way: clearly, your only criteria for interpreting rules is whatever benefits you personally. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The new situation was due to the change to AN/I, which does indeed have a different context (or I'd have first put reports there), but do go on. What are those benefits? I'd like to know what they are so I can use them. (SEWilco 14:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Did you really take SlimVirgin's messages on this page an an invitation to move to WP:AN/I and carry on business as usual there? She says you may be blocked for disruption if you continue posting the old violations (did you miss that part?), then she adds "though by all means report a new violation if you see one" (emphasis added by me). And after you respond, she says "you should probably either report them within a day or two (did you miss that also?), or let it be" and she adds "Also, it might make more sense if you were to report them on WP:AN/I as parole violations rather than on the 3RR page". Also =besides reporting them within a day or two.

I'm sorry, I try to AGF, but I look at the posts on this page, and at the way you read them, and I feel the assumption crumbling. Your interpretation is too selective. It not only flies in the face of all likelihood (would Slim invite you to do that? Seriously?), but also ignores salient parts of her text. Bishonen | talk 10:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I read and understood the situation better than she did. The discussion in WP:AN/3RR is based on an assumption that 3RR will be reported soon after having taken place, and the discussion in AN/3RR repeatedly refers to AN/3RR situations. WP:AN/I is not WP:AN/3RR, yet SlimVirgin brought the AN/3RR context over to a different context. The ArbComm has been asked for clarification. (SEWilco 16:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. Would you be able to run your bot through Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama to fix all the footnotes? Thanks. (Basically the same thing it did on Ainu language) --Hottentot 19:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Hottentot 01:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. (SEWilco 01:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 has been re-opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the additions you made to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2, other than the section on why case was accepted, which I responded to. On that page you may only make a statement in the section set aside for you. You may make motions on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop and use the talk pages of all pages for comment. Fred Bauder 15:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It won't hurt if I unprotect it while you make the changes! Just tell me when you are finished and I'll protect it again. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't yet know what Guanaco is talking about. Keep it protected at the moment, it may take a day or two to figure out what is being proposed (I haven't found the mentioned ability but doubt it is relevant to the changes I tried). Also Guanaco hasn't identified the noticed oddity. (SEWilco 04:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hi SEW; I've been looking at your poll, the recent RFC and the RFA. I won't, for the moment, be responding on the climate change page directly, since I think that a wider consensus is needed than just at one page. I will probably try to open up a general poll / discussion soon.

I also saw the RFC & RFA. I began to research this and after some reading found things which I thought might explain why you have been acting as you have; including some things being done that I thought were wrong, I was thinking about adding some supporting evidence to the RFA, but I realised that to do so I would pretty much have to put words in your mouth. For that reason, I'd like to ask that you first respond with some comment about how you feel (as opposed to evidence) and why.

One current problem, for your fair treatment, is that many people come into this discussion with little background. All they see is that you have an editing dispute with someone and that you have then continued to try to get that person blocked, even when various admins have said that that block isn't needed. An explanation of what you have been doing like, for example, "I felt attacked and the admins did nothing" would really help. If you wish to discuss then feel free to contact me (wiki or email etc.) Mozzerati 23:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be supplying more comments when they are ready. I've seen what happens when one responds piecemeal and hurried judgements take place from partial information. No hurry, the arbitrators are being slow to supply information and answers also. (SEWilco 04:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hi SEWilco, my compliments for your bot's hard work of turning article URLs into footnotes. This has been a bugbear of mine. What we need next is someone to change the NCBI/PubMed URLs into scientific footnotes. There is a possibility of doing batch citations from PubMed[10], although I'm not sure if that would include decoding PMIDs. At any rate, if this is possible we could feed the URLs into your bot and change Web references to PubMed into Journal References. JFW | T@lk 19:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed planned soon. It has been delayed by a rewrite using different parsing technology, which was required for several improvements including such citation and source examination. (SEWilco 19:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Ditto, i saw it pass through some articles on my watchlist too. Good job. David D. (Talk) 20:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although processing of individual citations is planned, design of the bot presently is oriented toward cleaning up individual articles and citations. There is a balance required between processing citation information and sweeping through an external collection of data such as PubMed. I will be using interfaces such as the one you mentioned, and have pointed out additional possibilities which may require Wikipedia Board action. (SEWilco 19:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I've sent an email to NCBI about this. What sort of "Board action" were you referrring to? JFW | T@lk 19:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are situations where it would be helpful for my bot to use Google:Scholar results. I've also encountered Wikipedia citation information which Google:Scholar seemed to not be aware of, such as an online copy of often-cited work. This suggests a mutually beneficial relationship, where data from Wikipedia (or its users) can enhance Scholar's data, and details for partial data can improve Wikipedia's citations. Google already has policies and tools which allow some of this activity. I've pointed this out to WP R&D. However, due to legal and corporate roadblocks it can be difficult to get such suggestions to someone in Google who can consider them. I understand the Wikimedia Foundation already has a relationship with Google, and this could send such suggestions to Google for their consideration (such as Google's lawyers ensuring ideas don't entangle their IP and then passing it on to the right staff). (SEWilco 21:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Strong support for the footnoting bot. Great work. Stirling Newberry 12:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am about done with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop. I'll put those proposals on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Proposed decision in a few days. Please make any comments or provide evidence which is relevant. I see here that folks like your bot. Fred Bauder 22:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start, although you should wait for all the evidence. As the arbitrators haven't even finished supplying their required rationale, so there didn't seem to be a hurry. Not that evidence is easy for this case. (SEWilco 04:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

It might be easier to work with country/flag template information through {{countryedit}}. Of course, there is no ISO country code for NJ nor an Olympic abbreviation. (SEWilco 16:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the info, I wasn't aware of this set of templates. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SEWilco,

can you please clarify if you address me or User:Fred Bauder in your recent edit at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop?

Thanks!

--Stephan Schulz 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. The motion itself is not signed. (SEWilco 21:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Interesting concept, would be nice to see it grow and expand into something substational. It a shame it it more or less, or well be, DOA, once the "insert name of group that does not acknowledge it existence but its actions prove it" get a whiff of it. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you should type {{subst:Doctl}} _→AzaToth 03:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I was looking at the diff. I guess I see what the first template does now. Obviously it needs documentation too :-) (SEWilco 03:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• hahahahaha :), the doclt utilize some of the moste stange things in wiki, test it so can you see :)

You can see my comments at Wikipedia talk:User Bill of Rights, but, out of curiosity, what brought my name to your attention specifically?--Sean|Black

I think it was a comment or vote in Silverback's admin culture discussion/RfC. (SEWilco 05:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

You might have better luck with Gulf Stream if you use {{ref}} and {{note}} for all refs which don't need ref_label/note_label. Use the ref_label/note_label only for links other than the first one, and let "#" ahead of the References to provide automatic numbering of the list. Then when a new note is inserted in References the numbering will adjust and only the ref_note numbers will need adjustment; the links will still work although ref_note numbers will be wrong. (SEWilco 07:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks very much for the advice. I didn't quite understand your suggestion to 'let "#" ahead of the References', but I think otherwise I've done as you propose and it seems to be working. From what you've said, I now understand that it is more robust for the addition of future extra references to avoid "ref label" except in the case of the duplicate reference to the same footnote. -- JimR 09:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for explaining the "#" part to number the footnotes: now done. -- JimR 03:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

replied on my talk page--JK the unwise 10:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SE, I've briefly blocked your bot because I see it's changing embedded links to footnotes again, against WP:CITE. Did you discuss with anyone that you were doing this, or get permission to use it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:V, you'll see the examples it gives are of embedded links and Harvard references, although it allows footnotes too. All three styles are allowed under WP:CITE, as you know, and we're not allowed to change from one style to another without gaining consensus on the page. Where there is a dispute, the first style used in the article should be deferred to. I'm confused, because you know this already, so I'm not sure how to proceed regarding your bot. Do you plan to continue using it to change citation styles to footnotes? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:CITE is violated by adding details about sources? It says "The most important thing is to enter comprehensive reference information — that is, enough information so that a reader can find the original source with relative ease.", and SEWilcoBot is adding reference information which helps find the original source (particularly if the URL later goes dead). Also if you read WP:V further you see that the important part of the examples is not the inline links but rather the detailed citation information. Use of an inline link is only accepted as a minimal citation for lack of any other detail, and it is expected that other editors will improve the citation. And when you run your revert button again to restore SEWilcoBot versions, leave George Galloway alone because that one has additional edits on it already. (SEWilco 14:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The part of WP:CITE that is violated is where it says not to change from one citation style to the other without consensus, and that in the case of a dispute, leave it in the style first used.

When embedded links and Harvard referencing are used correctly, a full citation is added to the references section, so all the information is there. We don't have control over editors who don't use the citation styles correctly. All we can do is explain how they should be used.

To look at just one example of a page your bot changed, Northern Pacific Railway Museum, if you look at your bot's version [11] and the version it changed [12], how does your bot's version supply more information? All it does is force the reader to the bottom of the page to find the link.

Anyway, the point is that the bot is editing against WP:CITE. Can you let me know whether you intend to continue or whether we can agree that you'll stop using it to do this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding content for citations, which is supported by both WP:V and WP:CITE. "Style" is the appearance of the article, and replacing a numbered link with another numbered link does retain the same style. The Northern Pacific Railway Museum change added the title of the document and the date it was accessed, both of which are needed for WP:CITE recovery instructions.[13] (SEWilco 15:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

If you want to add more citation detail, you're welcome to do so, but you can do that without changing to footnotes. That is the point here. Please don't use the bot to change embedded links or Harvard references to footnotes unless you gain consensus for the change on each of the article talk pages. I have to decide what to do regarding extending the block, or not, so can you let me know what your intentions are regarding the bot? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That edits are done by the bot is not relevant, I run it manually and have been reviewing all its edits. You have blocked me for following Wikipedia policy WP:V. If you want to forbid use of Wikipedia:Footnotes or change WP:V then make a proposal in those Talk pages. (SEWilco 15:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Footnotes are not forbidden, but nor are embedded links. What isn't allowed is to go around changing from one style to another without consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A URL alone is not a full citation and adding more detail is encouraged. If you want to change WP:V then make a proposal in its Talk page. (SEWilco 15:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

No, if you want to change WP:V, you make a proposal on its talk page. As it stands, it allows embedded links, as does WP:CITE, as you know very well. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It allows embedded links but prefers more detailed citation information. (SEWilco 21:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I have been blocked from editing and can not participate in Arbitration Committee activity. (SEWilco 15:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

You have not been blocked from editing. Your bot has been blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked. (SEWilco 15:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I suspect that since he and his bot edit from the same machine (and hence same IP address) the autoblocker catches SEWilco in your block of SEWilcoBot.

SEWilco, I'll lift the block(s) if you agree not to make further changes to footnote styles until the question of their appropriateness is settled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ToAT, User:SEWilco edited George Galloway twice after the bot was blocked, so what does he mean by saying he can't edit? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that when I click on "edit this page" (or "view source") I was getting a message that my IP was blocked by SlimVirgin. (SEWilco 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

TenOfAllTrades[edit]

Did you try to edit while logged out? Something seems to have tripped the autoblocker. Mysterious. It seems that you can edit now, at least. I'd urge you to refrain from using the bot to make footnote changes until the appropriateness of that use can be hashed out. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, although I did try to run SEWilcoBot on a sandbox. What is inappropriate about adding details about source material? (SEWilco 21:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

In general, there's nothing inappropriate about adding details about source material. The problem is that you're not asking the right question. It is inappropriate to run a bot that makes changes to page style where those changes are controversial...and, indeed, related to a case currently being arbitrated. There's obviously some dispute about citation style and content on the pages in question; its best not to run a bot until after some resolution of the dispute is achieved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The citations bot is just a user helper script, it is not running independently. Treat it as being me doing the editing. (SEWilco 00:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

If you want edits to be treated as you doing the editing, it might be best to use your own account, rather than your 'bot' account. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For this WP:V policy discussion, treat it as being me doing the editing. Browse through SlimVirgin's or SEWilcoBot's recent activity and you can see History of those articles shows the pace of my editing, as well as she is seeing some of those articles have my manual edits wrapped around SEWilcoBot. (SEWilco 07:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Not quite sure i understand exactly why you have been banned. Anyway good luck in having it over turned. I wish that I had known that you had a bot for converting ref's before I spent so long doing the Feb 15 page!--JK the unwise 17:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand your edit here at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question. - Ted Wilkes 19:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking why the question/proposal was not being considered based on the text of the proposal. I thought the editorial spew about an editor was not relevant to the proposal. (SEWilco 20:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hey there... I was just looking at Image:Last glacial vegetation map.png, and it appears that Antarctica and SE New Zealand were hmmm... Tropical Grassland. Got a source for that?  ;-) Tomer^talk 06:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Antarctica has the "Continent" color. The source seems to have moved, I added links to other maps to the image description. (SEWilco 07:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Oh. I see! So, then, it's only SE NZ that's tropical grassland?  ;-) Tomer^talk 10:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SEWilco. In WP:TFD#To orphan there are, at present, 3 templates to be orphaned and deleted. I'd do them myself, only they each have a considerable number of articles containing them at present. I wonder is your bot able to help out? Thanks. -Splash^talk 05:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. (SEWilco 06:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know there were still URLs in the article body. I think it's a good idea to turn them into footnotes. JFW | T@lk 07:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! WP:WPC could use your help; please see the bottom of this talk page. Thanks in advance! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template implemented, discussion in the above page. (SEWilco 22:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

First off, THANKS so much for your work on the references. I would like to replicate your work on some other articles that need it (specifically, Killian documents, which is a mess in many ways...) but I wasn't sure of the significance of the digits at the end of your template for the web references, e.g. "{{note|www.bartleby.com.274}}". What's that about, do I need to use it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaisershatner (talk • contribs) 19:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Those are numbers added by the citations bot as a side effect of its operation. The label name can be alphanumeric and some other characters, although not a space character. See WP:FN. (SEWilco 04:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've been trying manually to convert the refs in Killian documents but I'm running out of steam. If you think the bot would help, I'd be delighted. Kaisershatner 17:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were running out of steam? The bot was running out of steam! What a collection. (SEWilco 05:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Don't expect to hear much from me. An Administrator with no email address autoblocked me indefinitely, with a reason which does not make sense if he/she had read what he/she simultaneously reverted. Development of the country infobox transfer bot continues, but there will be no updates to its discussion. (SEWilco 15:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I blocked the new user RefBot as a precautionary measure. It edited User:SEWilcoBot to point to itself, but there was no edit from you to confirm that it was really you and not an impostor. Bots tend to make a lot of edits that nobody really checks (remember the fake Uncle G bot a while back), so impostor bots can be a problem. By the way, for some reason I thought you were an admin and would be able to unblock it yourself. For what it's worth, I don't believe autoblocks are ever indefinite (unless the implementation changed recently?) -- Curps 19:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there was no edit to point to a not yet fully defined user, and SEWilco was logged out while RefBot was logged in. There were SEWilco edits a few minutes before RefBot appeared, so I was around. And the autoblock is for 24 hours, but they keep getting reset to a later expiration time which is following the indefinite block. (SEWilco 19:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Are you sure you're blocked? [14] enochlau (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I was. [15] For some reason the autoblocker isn't showing in the Block log, but there were several autoblocks created so it was in effect an indefinite autoblock. (SEWilco 03:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 case. Raul654 18:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of the need for Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 20:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hello - Could you take a look at the Levy skew alpha-stable distribution article? The Template:ref_harvard and Template:note_label combination seems to be broken. There are three references in the first two paragraphs and clicking on them does nothing, whereas before it would direct you to the refs. Thanks - PAR 14:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see one cause and am working on it. (SEWilco 15:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Work interrupted by an Administrator blocking me on bad faith and in obvious error. Change your ref_harvard and note_label to define something for all the parameters. For note_label try "1|a" or "1|none". (SEWilco 03:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hi.

I have blocked RefBot temporarily while trying to understand its purpose. The recent Arbcom decision says:

 3) SEWilco should not use a bot to convert citations on articles, nor should he manually convert   citation styles on any articles. 

This edit looks to me like RefBot is converting citations on an article. Can you explain to me how this is in conformance with the terms of your probation? Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what's going on. Drop me a line and let me know. Thanks. Nandesuka 14:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article style already uses WP:FN. (SEWilco 15:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Sure. But how does that matter? The Arbcom decision doesn't say anything about article style. It says "SEWilco should not use a bot to convert citations on articles..." That was a citation on an article. You used a bot to convert it. I've asked Arbcom to clarify their decision, but on the face of it I don't think that edit is permitted. Nandesuka 15:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not convert a citation, I created a citation where none had existed. (SEWilco 15:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I think your argument is too subtle for a simple man like me to understand. A citation is a reference to a book, paper, or other work.[16]. The inline link was a reference to the guardian web site. You converted it to the format you prefer. In any event, I'm sure the Arbcom will clarify for us if I am mistaken. Nandesuka 15:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created a citation in the format which is already in use in the article. Remove the block until you know what you are doing. (SEWilco 15:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

No. The bot's activities contravene the plain reading of the ArbCom's decision. If another admin thinks I have made a mistake, I will not object if they lift the block. And obviously if a clarification from Arbcom comes down that indicates that my reading is in error, I'll be glad to lift the block myself. If, on the other hand, my reading is not in error, then I think you are fortunate that it is only the bot that is blocked at this point. Nandesuka 15:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A URL link alone is not a citation. "complete citations — also called "references," because the citations identify the referred-to sources — are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading". Keep reading plainly. (SEWilco 15:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Three arbitrators on the mailing list have now indicated that this is exactly what you are not supposed to use bots to do. Phil Sandifer 20:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not convert the article format. The format was already using WP:FN, so additions are also supposed to use that format. I did maintenance on the article and created the missing citation, which WP:CITE states should exist in boldface several times. There was no citation to convert. (SEWilco 21:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I repeat - three arbitrators have said RefBot should be blocked uner the terms of your ruling. Since they made the rule, I feel they are entitled to declare it to work this way. Phil Sandifer 23:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And nor may I do that manually. So they're confirming that they refuse to follow WP:V and adding that on existing articles I must not follow WP:CITE, WP:MOS-L, etc. Some encyclopedia we're building here. (SEWilco 03:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Now I've been blocked erroneously by an Administrator that apparently thinks User:RefBot is a hidden account or something. I had made links to it from User:SEWilco and User:SEWilcoBot, and the Admin is claiming authority under a ruling which applies to me under any account. (SEWilco 03:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

It's not a hidden account, but you're operating it to try to game the AC ruling. If you want to be banned completely, you're certainly heading in the right direction. Stop pulling stupid shit - David Gerard 20:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What does "operating it to try to game the AC ruling" mean? Do you think there is something about that account which makes its operation have a different relationship to the ruling from SEWilcoBot? Did I set something wrong in its Preferences? And why is it referred to as a "second account" when it is my third? (SEWilco 21:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

User:RefBot has been blocked indefinitely with the current explanation "username created only to evade arbcom ruling". This is incorrect. As has been explained to the blocking Admin, RefBot was spun off (before the ArbCom ruling) because it has become too specialized for the utility and development account User:SEWilcoBot. Evasion also does not make sense with an account labeled as belonging to me, as the ArbCom refers to me under any account and was aware of User:SEWilcoBot. (SEWilco 01:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

You may have already found out about this, but this could be your saviour: the new Cite extension (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php). This basically provides intrinsic support for citations into MediaWiki, and combines the power of the footnoting templates currently in use with the ease of use of inline references as demanded by WMC. Although the ArbCom decision prevents you from unilaterally changing reference styles, you may like to raise this with other contributors on the pages that you regularly edit. Cheers. enochlau (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working with the author of Cite on it already, as it does look like a useful tool. There was no need to mention it along with many details; or maybe there was a need but the "case" was so poorly defined the need was not apparent. The ArbCom's decision is too ambiguous to be very useful and I've asked for clarification. The consolidation of WP:CITET will be awkward without RefBot's next version. Updating/replacing "ref/note" even more so due to variety of citation structures. Maybe converting "ref/note" to "cite" is not considered "converting citation" if the effect is the same. (SEWilco 15:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

For that matter, the ArbCom ruling is so ambiguous that I may not be allowed to discuss how someone else might change a citation. (SEWilco 15:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I have been adding a query regarding the Bill of Rights, along with the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct, to those candidate pages where you have not already asked it, and I am attempting to compile a list of responses. Obviously, a "correct" answer would not be the sole criterion for evaluating a candidate, but does separate the sheep from the goats. I have found that in previous elections, it is very difficult to know what an ArbCom candidate is actually going to do, just by reading their statements. Incidentally, Silverback has waged a fairly gutsy campaign against what he calls the "admin culture of abuse," which leads me to have some confidence in his intentions to clean things up around here.

I presume that your motivations are similar to mine; I had a recent experience with the present ArbCom which convinced me that the present line-up is hopelessly corrupt, and more than happy to abuse its power to promote one POV over another, without any pretense of a justification founded on official Wikipedia policies. I have concluded that the only real solution is some sort of formal check on ArbCom powers, but I will settle for new ArbCom members that acknowledge that there is a problem.

I am astonished at the wild machinations aimed at suppressing the Bill of Rights. You would think that its opponents would simply encourage votes against it, but they seem to want to bury it altogether, so that the Wikipedia community will be unaware the the issue was ever raised. I find this very creepy -- maybe a lot of these Wikipedians are hoping to land a position at the Washington Post or something. --HK 07:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SEW, you've been reported for a violation of your probation by changing citation styles at Sea level rise and have been blocked for 72 hours. This was agreed upon by at least three admins as required by the arbitration committee. See WP:AN/I#User:SEWilco. If you feel the block is unwarranted, you're welcome to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My work has again been interrupted by interference by "Administrator" User:SlimVirgin. She blocked me based on her incomplete information to WP:AN/I#User:SEWilco. In article Sea level rise, User:William M. Connolley had deleted material contrary to his POV while claiming in Talk:Sea level rise that he couldn't find the connection between citations and the related material. Because one link had gone dead WMC deleted the section [17] instead of following WP:CITE and leaving the supporting link or finding a copy of the material. WMC claims URL-only citations are sufficient but obviously couldn't find a replacement link using only the URL. I restored more complete citations which User:William M. Connolley had deleted because he didn't have time. [18] While adding clarifications to the information I was blocked. (SEWilco 04:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The meaning of the ruling is that you are not allowed to change from one citation style to another for any reason whatsoever. When you asked for clarification, Fred Bauder replied: "Please assume the broadest possible interpretation. We will back up any administrator that blocks you under a broad interpretation." [19] Having said that, this example didn't even involve a broad interpretation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The citations already existed and you neglected to mention that. Stop deleting information from Wikipedia.[20][21] (SEWilco 04:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

At the risk of making a fool of myself, I'm going to assume you genuinely don't understand the ruling. When you changed [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/425.htm] (which looks like this [22] in the text) to {{ref|www.grida.no.454}} (which looks like this ^[23]), you changed the citation style. You are not allowed to do that. Not for any reason.

If you feel more citation information is needed, you must add it using the citation style already used throughout the article. In this case, that would have meant adding a full citation to the References section for the article linked to. But not a citation in the form of footnotes, because that would have meant changing the citation style. Sea level rise currently does not use a footnote system, so you are not allowed to add one.

In this case, a full citation would have involved writing something like the following in the References section:

• "Changes in Sea Level", Climate Change 2001, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, undated, retrieved January 7, 2006

That gives you all the information you need, exactly the same amount of information as with a footnote system. Let me know if there's something you still don't understand, and I'll try to explain it further. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the above mentioned Talk:Sea level rise, where WMC can't find the text associated with unlinked references. I restored the existing "converted" links to more complete citations (deleted by WMC because of a lack of time), I did not "convert" again. Now, why is it OK for you to delete those more detailed citations instead of changing them to the format which you prefer? (SEWilco 05:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Whether you restored a citation system that had been there earlier, or converted for the first time, and whether or not WMC can or can't find something, you are not allowed for any reason to make an edit that changes a style like this [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/425.htm] (which looks like this [24] in the text) to a style like this {{ref|www.grida.no.454}} (which looks like this ^[25] in the text). And you are not allowed to add footnotes to the end of the page either. That is the important point to grasp: not for any reason, no matter how good.

As for me changing it back, I don't have a preference regarding which style this article should use, because I'm not editing it. All I'm doing is reverting your citation changes following the arbcom ruling. It's up to the editors on the page which citation style to use, and you are one of the editors, so you can be involved in the discussion about it, but you're not allowed to be the one who makes the change. Is that clearer? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I may add details but not touch, improve, or make easier to use an existing URL, despite any otherwise overriding Official Policy? (SEWilco 06:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

That's more or less correct. You would be allowed to add information so long as you used exactly the same citation system as before. For example, if you found an article that had a URL as a source, but no full citation in the References section, then you could add that full citation, but not in the form of a footnote. If any of the touching, improving, or making it easier to use involves changing the citation system, you would not be allowed to do it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this is ridiculous. Just the other day you reverted his edits to Battle of Singapore when we wanted the new citation style (we being the people at the SGpedians' ntotice board). That said, yes, what if we want it (or whoever else happens to be editing the article)? For that matter, Surely the Arbcom ruling was merely to prevent edit wars over the citation style, not make ridiculous restrictions on actual contributions to articles that we couldn't be bothered with otherwise? My original intent was to see if SEWilco's bot could help me with automatically converting some articles to use a footnote system if requested, but apparently the arbitration ruling prevents him such. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the other editors agree on the talk page to change citation styles, you're of course allowed to do that. But the ruling says that SEWilco is not allowed to do it, because a complaint was made against him for doing it against consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lazy (or just pressurised with lots of articles to work on). His bot isn't, or himself for that matter. Again, isn't the arbitration request simply supposed to prevent him from changing citation styles out of his own whim and fancy (and to prevent edit wars), and not when consensus wants the new citation style? Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling is that SEWilco must not change from one citation style to another. If there is consensus on the page, other editors will make the change, but in this case, there is no sign of consensus. On the contrary, the other editors keep reverting him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability requires no consensus for improving verifiability. And until the restrictions on me, Wikipedia:Footnotes was both documented as being an intermediate step toward better methods and could track any better methods within days of such becoming available. (SEWilco 02:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

That is correct, SEW. You are allowed to improve reference material but you must do that within the citation style already on the page. All citation styles give the same information, when used correctly. A full citation should always be given in the References or Notes section with every citation style. Just as you would not add a number to a text without a corresponding footnote, you should not add an embedded link to a text without a corresponding citation in the References section. So please do improve things, but do not change the citation style. I hope that is clear now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now that is the case. My paragraph before yours was referring to your reference to the edit wars before the ArbCom ruling, where there were "other editors" reverting. (SEWilco 04:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The arbcomm ruling is perfectly clear; SEW, you do yourself no favours by pretending not to understand it. That said, Natalina makes a fair point: you are interested in fixing refs which other people often neglect. I make two suggestions:

• copy the article, with updated references, into a /tmp on the talk page; point it out to people on the talk page. If someone likes it, they will insert it.
• update the article refs, then revert to the previous version. Again, note on the talk page, and if people like it they will revert to the updated version. This might just be a technical violation of your parole, but I can't see anyone would complain, and I would certainly argue in your defence that this was simply making a different version available if people chose to use it.

Needless to say, these should only be done if you're unsure: where people have made it clear that they object (certainly covered by SLR), you should leave the article ref style unchanged.

I have a third suggestion, which is that the new cite extension almost but not quite renders this whole problem moot. Why not work with the developer to try to make it cover both cases?

William M. Connolley 20:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure someone would be just thrilled to delete the number of /tmp pages which would be involved in the many articles without full citations. What is the "this whole problem"? What are the "both cases"? I've been involved with Cite before it was installed here, but how does yet another format do more than offer another format not to "convert"? (SEWilco 02:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

You prefer the footnote style. I (and others) prefer inline links. Cite.pm could, potentially, generate either from the same text, depending on the users or the pages preferences. This would solve the dispute over reference format. William M. Connolley 11:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

And as I told you in another Talk page, I was also adding a "url=" parameter to WP:FN tools before Cite existed; this was interrupted by the AUTOINCREMENT experiment by the author of Cite.pm. The advantage of Cite.pm here is that Cite.pm can produce a single link to a citation (numbered or labeled link) with a non-numbered external link symbol where the symbol itself is the link (WP:FN can not create a linked image). There are many ways of producing inline links to external pages, and support for all of them is required. What is required by WP:V is full citations, and WP:V does not require one-click access by nonexistent users rather than two-click access. (SEWilco 18:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Again, what is "this whole problem moot" and what are the "both cases" to which you refer? (SEWilco 18:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know much about the ArbCom case involving you (and don't particularly want to) but just so you know, there's a new citation feature available at m:Cite/Cite.php. If you could use that in future, it would be appreciated. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 23:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look above and you'll see others pointed it out and I've been involved with Cite before it was mentioned here. I use whatever Wikipedia best practices are available. (SEWilco 02:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

My apologies. I was in a hurry when making the comment. [[Sam Korn]] 23:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put Template:Country alias Akrotiri and Dhekelia up for CSD. If this is something you are in the middle of working on please remove the CSD notice and replace it with content or an inuse tag. Thanks! -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) If needed, please reply on my talk page [reply]

As the edit comment suggested, this is part of a data array used by tools related to Template:Flag. CSD removed. (SEWilco 06:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The entire scheme around the various country_flag and country_infobox templates you've created is in violation of the WP:AUM policy. The developers have confirmed that templates calling or within other templates cause extra processing. This policy has been reaffirmed by the Arbitrators as valid. The template namespace is not a general data repository. -- Netoholic @ 08:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I pointed this out in Template_talk:Infobox_Country#Complete_list_of_country_articles_not_directly_using_.7B.7BInfobox_Country.7D.7D. The m:Help:Arrays are being used for the minimal information for the tasks, intentionally not creating items for every parameter in Country infoboxes. Also, the data repository which Jimbo described is one of the technologies to which I refer in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Technical_issues as a replacement for the data array (there are other proposals such as selecting data within a page). What is the development status of the data repository which Jimbo described last year? (SEWilco 09:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Infobox vote where a poll was held about the specific issue of country infoboxs. The predominant, and ultimately accepted, practice was to use one common template and put the template's data in the country article itself. Any suggestion to change to that strategy should be brought to the WikiPRoject itself, not the talk page of the Infobox (which should stick to the Infobox operation only). -- Netoholic @ 09:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A poll a year ago, maybe that's why I didn't notice a link to it. Further discussion on Infobox_Country should be over yonder (whether that's the Infobox or Project page). (SEWilco 09:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Why are you contacting all the participants in his priot RfA? El_C 07:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case they are interested in the new RFA. (SEWilco 07:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

78 votes have already been cast — do you not find this excessive? El_C 07:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the number of votes relevant? To which phrase does the pronoun "this" refer in "this excessive"? Please rephrase your question. (SEWilco 07:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I mean, it isn't as if it lacked many participants to the point that further input was needed to such an extent. Thus, a comment on the Village Pump would have probably been sufficient; copy-pasting a notice on each person's talk page seems excessive. El_C 07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you think voting should end at some number of votes. Is 10 enough? (SEWilco 08:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Not end; this was regarding further input through mass talk page notices versus a single notice on the Village Pump. El_C 08:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a targeted list, and everyone on the list no matter how they voted. Will you revert your changes? You're interfering with the required full notification of everyone equally. (SEWilco 08:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It appears we are at an impass, since I do not see it that way. Again, please feel free to seek additional input at WP:ANI if you strongly contest my position. Thanks. Regards, El_C 08:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]