User talk:Lar/Archive 7#Lego

"I still oppose out of process, though, and will continue to do so."

I can respect that. I'll even agree with you in many cases, I just happen to draw the line on the other side of userboxes. Thanks for being bold and updating the criterion; I hope it sticks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

:"We're not trying to establish social justice; we're trying to write an encyclopedia. Fairness and consistency aren't the point, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR are, as applied to articles. Everything else matters only insofar as it serves those. Encouraging the expectation of a social justice system doesn't serve the encyclopedia."

:I fear I haven't made my point clear enough yet. WP is not a democracy, it's not a country, it's not an experiment in social justice. It's not even a commmunity except insofar as any collection of people is a community, and insofar as it supports the goal, which is writing an encyclopedia. I draw the analogy to work, not to government. I have an expectation that my employer will use process and policy in my work environment in order to ensure that all employees are treated consistently and fairly. If that expectation is not met, and I cannot change it, I seek employment elsewhere. We are volunteer employees here, if you like, here because we want to be, and paid in currencies (respect, barnstars, collegiality, pride of creation, on and on, whatever) that vary from person to person, but we are carrying out the work. The work cannot continue without us and editors are the lifeblood of the encyclopedia. Insofar as we have a system that is perceived as arbitrary, capricious, cabalistic, cliquish, or unfair, we will lose editors. maybe not all of them, certainly, but enough that not being fair, not being reasonable, not having process and policy, and not following them except in a very small subset of instances, harms the encyclopedia. THAT is the reason I speak out in favour of process, not because this is some great social experiement for its own sake, but because it keeps editors on the job. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

::I finally have time to reply. First of all, thank you for your well thought-out comments. I understand that you're presenting a metaphor: Wikipedia is like a job. It's true that Wikipedia is like a job in some respects. Thinking of it as "like a job" will lead one to have certain expectations that one associates with jobs. I think I don't have the same expectations you seem to have because I have a different metaphor (or bundle of metaphors) in mind.

::When I work on Wikipedia I feel I'm participating in an organic process, in which structure and order emerge in an elegant way from the actions of thousands of independent agents. Maybe it's like the way an ant hill or beehive operates, I don't know. I know it's messy, in the sense that living things are messy: it's always in a state of flux, and its left hand doeesn't always know what its right hand is doing. The "rules" (except for about 3 policy pages) are a dynamic set of mutually contradictory aphorisms that constantly mutate in reaction to new terrain, as we feel it out. This has to happen to give Wikipedia the flexibility to adapt to whatever it encounters.

::The mechanism of that "feeling out" process is our willingness to not be process bound. We have to constantly innovate, see something that seems like a good idea and do it, be bold, evaluate each application of process in terms of how well it builds the encyclopedia, make mistakes, etc, etc. We have to cross lines constantly, to keep track of their motion, and we try to document it in the written guidelines. Borrowing from a completely different metaphor, we have these gardens of red tape we grow, to support the encyclopedia, and we have to prune the heck out of those gardens by cutting through the Gordian knots that inevitably arise everywhere.

::Talking about fairness on an individual level seems somehow irrelevant and distracting when I'm thinking of Wikipedia the way I'm describing. I'm not sure I'm expressing it very well. Let me address your words: I don't perceive Wikipedia as "arbitrary, capricious, cabalistic, cliquish, or unfair," at least not in a negative sense. I perceive it as alive, in a limited way. It's trying to be a mind. A mind can't document each thought before it has it. A degree of arbitrariness and caprice are necessary for creativity. Cabalism and cliquishness are usually illusory, but insofar as they exist, I don't think of them as that, so much as some droplets being at the front of a wave, and others somewhere inside it. They're all necessary, as is the tension and pressure of droplets pushing against each other. Otherwise, no wave. Unfairness... I dunno, I just don't see Wikipedia as a place where fairness and unfairness happen.

::Am I making any sense at all? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Some. Like the elephant and the blind men... WP is more than we think. Those that say WP is like a democracy are not entirely wrong (mostly, but not entirely). Those that say WP is like a job are not entirely wrong either (less wrong than the first). Those that say that WP is like an organism also are not entirely wrong. My thinking in response to your comment though, is this. WP may be like a living thing but it's like one in which the red blood cells can up and leave if they want to. The body continues to live after a small cut in which some cells leave. But not after a major one in which many do. Treat the cells unfairly (even if there is no such thing as fairness) or in a way the cells perceive as unfair, and off they go.

:::Further, while I am well aware there is no cabal there certainly are cliques. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that. We are political animals, we humans.

:::Finally I strongly disagree that we should not be process bound. Process is goodness. But it is not immutable. Where it needs changing, we need to change it with alacrity. The current CSD/UB debate is part of the meta-process of changing process. ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Ok, I think we're understanding each other a bit. I agree with that first part, about the elephant.

::::I can't agree with your motto about process. Process is very good until it's bad, and then it's bureaucracy and instruction creep. I think that digging something up to rebury it, which keeps getting suggested at DRV, is process gone bad, for example.

::::You're right about people getting upset and leaving if they perceive mistreatment. That's hard to talk about in the abstract - are we talking about people having their userboxes deleted here? Is that the unfair treatment at stake, or is something else in mind? In general, I would think we should be able to better educate users as to what Wikipedia's like, and then they might not perceive injustice in what is perfectly normal functioning. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

But since I'm watching this page again now, I thought this chat worth getting in on. Rather than espousing my particular take on the importance of rules, I'll just add some free-form thoughts on XfDs¹and how they may come to a close. There will probably be multiple tangents and asides, so feel free to skim. I've signed every section so that if someone wants to tell me I'm an idiot for something I say in the middle it's easy to do so. This is the closest I've ever come to writing a "wiki-philisophy" essay.
brenneman^{L} 07:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What is it that we are actually talking about when we say "process" anyway? Looking at blocking policy for instance, the earliest document is almost unrecognisable from the current form. Almost every policy/guideline/process/whatever has grown organically. (Ignoring the bolted-on-travesty of clerkdom², for the moment.) When we say "follow the rules" we're really saying "do what everyone has agreed." WP:WEB works because (despite some "take-it-to-RfArb" resistance) the majority came to an agreement. WP:SCHOOL failed to work because of bloody-mindedness and failure to compromise from some quarters.³ The most stable policy pages are often those that have at some stage seen the most highly-charged editing. But once we work it out together, they keep the masses happy.
brenneman^{L} 07:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority (over 85% of the sample I took) could have there outcome predicted by the first five participants. That is to say, if someone just came along and closed the discussion pretty much whenever they felt like it, there would be no problem at all. We know this intuitively, and it's what we're referring to most of the time when we call upon the power of wp:snow. Even more powerfully, it's what makes {{tl|prod}} work at all.⁴ But when it comes to deletion, a 15% error rate is simply massive I think we'd all agree. So we've got one reason to let things run their course: We don't know ahead of time what the outcome is going to be. Some other unstructured thoughts: On several occasions I've asked admins who closed borderline AfDs as "no consensus" to re-open them, and in every case after running for ten days they had gone to clear deletions. We go outside the rule set there and it's unpopular with those who said "keep" but it's pretty hard to argue that it was the wrong thing to do. This is coming around to "what's the purpose of rules" in a round-about manner, I know.
brenneman^{L} 07:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so feeling around here, we've got that the "rule" about not closing early has some good reasons: Uncertainty. But there are also times when we're pretty damn sure what the outcome is going to be (knowing of course that we might be wrong) and still not want to close early. This is the "perception of fairness" that has been mentioned before. The encyclopedia doesn't give a rat's arse about "fair" of course, but the contributors do. Everyone wants their contributions valued, both article facts and meta-opinions. Most people are ok with things going a way they oppose as long as they feel like they have been listened to. Letting things run for the full period also gives less ammunition to those people who are really only looking for reasons to complain. In the end, though, we are willing to sacrifice the feelings of a few foot-soldiers for the greater good: If there is real damage occurring, screw the "rules" and grab a bucket.
brenneman^{L} 07:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

But how often does an actual "emergency" happen? In almost every instance I can recall, the over-reaction to the perceived problem was the actual source of disruption. Emergency workers (and soldiers) spend more time practising fighting fires than actually dousing flames. The steps you have to do become ruts worn into your brain, so that when you are actually required to think about a novel situation, you've got the capacity to do so. The policies and guidelines are similar: If we do things the way we "always do them" we will be able to concentrate on the actual issues and ignore the noise of process.
brenneman^{L} 07:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So, for myself, when faced with a XfD question , I look over several factors. In order of importance:

• What's best for the encyclopedia according to existing policy. We don't vote on verification, for example.
• What's best for the encyclopedia according to the participants in the discussion. This is "gauging consensus" and not to be confused with vote counting.
• How has the process affected the outcome. Do I suspect debate-packing, is there a script being used, or are some of the participants more experienced than others.

When I contribute to a discussion, I make my recommendation based upon the same order. This means that I may have some dynamic tension between what I want personally, what's best for the encyclopedia, and what I suspect the outcome of a debate may be. If I want something to die, but see that neither is there a clear policy reason for it to go nor am I certain it would fail XfD, saying "Relist but I'll say to delete" is perfectly valid.
brenneman^{L} 07:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In the end it's about striking the line between making everyone⁵ feel safe, giving them the structure in which to concentrate on the goals of the encyclopedia, and making sure that the safety net doesn't become a cage. For a very few individuals, these same structures are an encumbrance because they brook no interference with their opinions of what's correct. Speedy deletion, for instance, is a slippery slope. When we begin to delete things based upon "divisiveness" without any recourse, we're simply asking for whomever has the thickest skin to make "do what thou will" the whole of the law. This is a problem that we have not yet solved.
brenneman^{L} 07:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on your adminship. And here's a pretty userbox that I made. Dspserpico 05:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:user Delta Sig

:Thanks! I tend to subst these and remove the categories. DSP is pretty non controversial but I still don't want to enable vote stacking. Nice looking box though, I'll put the subst'd version on my babel page! ++Lar: t/c 10:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Gee Lar, you're swell! ++Lar: t/c 13:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

(moved from Flcelloguy's page)

I think you may have unprotected this early, not sure. I just moved it off the main and went to unprotect it and saw that you had unprotected 10 min after I put it on in the last update. Or maybe I was looking at things wrong... PS you can answer here, I watch... ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

:Sorry, I'm going to reply here because I'm stubborn and have never replied on my own talk page before. :-) It appears that you didn't update the template until [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADid_you_know&diff=53392364&oldid=53380390 21:34], the exact time I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AKisdon_Force.jpg&diff=53392456&oldid=53390453 unprotected] it. Thus, when I checked the category of protected page images a minute or so earlier, the Kisdon Force image was neither on the main page nor linked to any templates; as such, I unprotected it. Appears to be an unfortunate coincidence that I checked the images in the 11 minutes between your protection and update; I apologize for this and will be more careful in the future. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

::OK, no worries. (replied here because *I* am stubborn too, I can't stand disjointedness) My protect summary DID say: "17:23, 15 May 2006 Lar protected Image:Kisdon Force.jpg (About to be used in WP:DYK on main page [edit=sysop:move=sysop])" though, so it should have been clear... Protection is the first thing I do so I don't forget, and saving the template is the last thing I do just about... I have done this enough times to know that I desparately want to automate it, I can tell you that. It's fiddly! ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Heh... because of my stubbornness, I've readded your part of the thread to my talk page. :-) I agree that updating DYK is a long and lengthy process, having done it several times. I'll try be more attentive to the protection log next time. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Go right ahead and do that, but I'm only answering here, not there. What should I have done differently? This is a general question because others might make the same slipup. The issue is that the image went unprotected the whole time it was on the main page. Fortunately nothing happend but it could have. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::Don't worry, your page is on my watchlist now. :-) I really don't see what could be done, other than to update the template quicker from the time of protection (or update it first and then protect) and me and the other admins unprotecting images being more atttentive. Luckily (knocks on wood here), we've done such a good job on protecting images and templates that even if one or two slip through the crack for a few hours, nothing happens. (And such images will be protected sooner rather than later; the images are pretty much checked daily when old images are unprotected and new images are protected.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I say unprotection tomorrow, late tomorrow. Not first thing. Let's wait for AMK152 and Caldorwards4 to speak. ForestH2

I say we need to ask Caldorwards4. The next two episdoes will be out in 2 weeks, and 4 weeks. ForestH2

:Let's confine talk on this to just the talk page of the article. No need for clutter here. However, I disagree. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

See how I did now......ForestH2

I've just suggested that any admin who has six guys with 500 edits asking him to run again should have to do so. Thoughts? brenneman^{L} 02:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

:I dunno. What's the link again? I can't find it. I am starting to waver on the whole idea of having to be reconfirmed periodically. ++Lar: t/c 02:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aaron_Brenneman&diff=prev&oldid=53618364 Here.] I'm against automatic periodic reconfirmation, it probably doesn't scale. But I'm for something to make it less "Nya-nya, what you gonna do now that I'm in?" - brenneman^{L} 02:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Well after Cyde told me I needed to drop my "holier than thou" attitude ... maybe! ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I took a stab at a better hook; your comments are appreciated. Cheers, Postdlf 14:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

:Commented. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the image was deleted on English Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_May_11, but an image with the same filename was uploaded to Wikipedia Commons on May 5th which is currently pending deletion. Regards Arniep 15:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

:Needs to come back to en then, in my view... it's not eligible for commons, being copyrighted, but is a perfectly fine fair use image once attributed and The Beatles would look much better with it, (that article lacks a picture of them from that era now) as it had it before. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I need help with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_%22Bu%22_Dreaves&action=history

User keeps removing tags. Yanksox 16:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

:I've warned him again and deleted the article. I have to go soon, so if he does it again you may need to ask a different admin for help. Good luck and thanks for your efforts on behalf of the 'pedia... ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, pretty awesome! How was that page selected?

I shall remember this day as the first time I made the front page of WP (sorta). Best, Paul 05:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

:selected on a whim. (as they all are... is the article interesting? is it long enough? is the hook line good? are there too many other articles from that topic area?) It was an interesting article! Keep writing more great articles please! ... (see User:Lar/DYK) ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lar,

I am honored by your support in my recent successful request for adminship. As an administrator, I am your servant, ready to help however I can. (In your case, since you've had the tools longer than I, my best use might be menial labor!) My talk page is always open; should you need anything, or should you see me making a mistake -- probably a common occurrence -- please do let me know. I will depend on the good sense of the community to keep me from making a complete fool of myself! :) In gratitude, Xoloz 16:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lar. You actually weren't one of the people I was referring to, because I didn't know you had deleted the article. (And if you did I guess you must've changed your mind.) I actually have been talking to people who make bad calls, but mostly to the nominators, because it's easier to see articles that have been misnominated (but still exist) than to see those that have been mis-deleted. Anyway, you've already seen my major general comment on speedies: neither being advertizing, nor failing to meet WP:CORP, makes a corporation an A7 speedy automatically. -- SCZenz 18:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

:I did change my mind after the author sent me mail and I took a harder look at it, so I restored it, and put the comment about ghits on it... And your point is well taken. Seeing all the stuff in CSD makes you just want to go delete crazy to try to keep up (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Lar&page= ) as it's a never ending battle, and probably that's not good, need to go slower. I can't believe I've deleted as many articles as I have though... some inclusionist I am! ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just a heads up letting you know that user IP address 169.229.65.30 is now going under 169.229.65.35 in order to continue edit war.

Much appreciated.--Downwards 23:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

:I think a range block is in order but I'm taking this to WP:AN ++Lar: t/c 23:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Noticed that you deleted that previously deleted article and warned the user. Thanks. There was related vandalism, to 1959 and May 10, adding links to the now-deleted article. That user also has at least one anon sockpuppet. See {{user|69.235.232.112}}, which probably should be watched. I think all the vandalism has been cleaned up now, but it took the efforts of four people to do it. --John Nagle 02:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There was actually 4 different versions of that, and 2 users to get warnings (the way I found that out was by looking at what linked to the image)... I would have deleted the image too but it is used in BJAODN apparently. ++Lar: t/c 02:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. If I may ask, what did make you pay attention to this entry?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

:Check my user page (I post my last name on it...). My father was born in Gostynin, south of Krakow. Plus you've been doing some good ones so thought this one might be too. I don't speak Polish myself and don't have enough time to take on more projects but find the articles interesting. ++Lar: t/c 02:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I didn't feel anything in the previous talk page was necessary to archive, as it was just a welcome and a suggestion to sign my vandal warnings (which incidentally, my edit on that page was a combination welcome/test page warning, and I did sign the welcome part). Future talk pages of more notable content will be most certainly archived.Alan 04:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested, I just added a new tidbit that in today's news (link fortuitously added by someone else) and this landslide. Apparently it moved 62 miles in 30 minutes! howcheng {chat} 23:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

:Holy crap, how did it do that? That's 120mph!!! pretty fast for rock! ++Lar: t/c 23:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel like doing marriage? I do them by hand and I'm feeling lazy. - brenneman^{L} 11:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? That article doesn't seem to have any references right now, one way or the other. Or are you referring to a way to convert the in-line external links to references? --Cyde↔Weys 11:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

:Err, what? When a statement in an article is followed immed. by an external link, is it any less a "reference" if it doesn't use that word?
brenneman^{L} 12:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

::I'm going to Michigan's Adventure today, first park visit of this coastering season, and then to the Whitecaps (Grand Rapids) baseball game. I'll consider giving it a go when I get back if it hasn't been done. ++Lar: t/c 12:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

::You haven't answered the question and I'm still not exactly sure what is going on here. I'm not trying to argue over the definition of references. I was actually going to ask if there was any desire for a tool that would automatically convert inline external links to proper references (something I've thought about doing before). AGF please. --Cyde↔Weys 12:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Cyde, he was initially talking to me, not you, and I knew what he meant. I'd also point out that you have some unanswered questions and comments from me, last I checked, on YOUR talk page. If you don't have enough to do, perhaps you could answer those before giving the appearance of being combative on my talk page. I won't stand for incivility, or even the appearance of it here.

:::That said, and since you brought it up, I looked at the article and it has a lot of links that are just links. They have no tagging whatever, so at present, hand process of some sort to add them is needed. If you wanted to make a version of the ref converter that turned bare links into references I think that would be useful indeed, though. BUT, if possible, I'd like to see it have a more complex UI, one in which it presented each link in context and gave you the choice to leave it as is, or convert it, and if converted, a chance to add explanatory text so it was not just a bare link. ++Lar: t/c 12:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

:::What? I don't want to have a bunfight on Lars page, but, what? AGF? I'm going to take this page off my watchlist for a while, as that response was slightly surreal and I'm afraid to comment further. - brenneman^{L} 12:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Brenny, please don't do that! (Your whole talk/user page is surreal what with the minimalist bauhaus collapsing sections thing being the only visible content when one arrives! I hate having to go there.) Just talk to me and ignore Cyde if you must. ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Lar, thank you for nominating me; I was rather pleased to read your kind comments. And I've accepted, and hope to glean something useful from the process, which I understand carries accusations of being something poisonous at present. Rob Church (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Issue 002 is at a very important stage... it only now needs some content. Please help! LessHeard vanU 20:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

:I'm good for edit checking and for delivering, as promised, but I'm not your man for content, mate... There has been external news, Macca's breakup! Any internal implications to the project worth mentioning?? That's all I've got. Grin. ++Lar: t/c 21:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry :) I did not see the warning. You need to put it in huge flashing red letters for me to see image:Smile.png But the changes made it and thank you so much for the notice! It's very kind of you. I will be sure to be more careful next time... BTW, you are doing a great job! Renata 03:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I don't like to edit my own talk page, dunno why)

I presume these edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_KLF&diff=prev&oldid=54284369][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/May_2006&diff=prev&oldid=54284199][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/May_2006&diff=prev&oldid=54284225][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&diff=prev&oldid=54284154]

are enough for it to be official... Looks like I got myself a Featured Article! :) --kingboyk 04:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

:Nice one mate. When are we going to talk via IM? Send me your handle and some good talk times via mail, will ya? ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can stand one more stanza of my singing, here's how the last verse goes:

:

But I saw you say "That's hot" on a talk page and I stole it for my sig. Bwaha. Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 22:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

:I said it in passing as a joke because someone else says "that's hot" a lot... it was an ironic reference. Look for it in RfA comments, the user is "Mike someone", I think but I forget the exact name... So you're welcome to it as far as I am concerned, but you're not nicking it from me per se, if you see what I mean. Best wishes and happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

::Well, I know it is originally derived from the "That's so (not) hot" of Paris Hilton fame. However, I have to give people who use it credit. But I'll find this "Mike someone" and ask him then. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 22:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Well you're a good egg for asking! Thanks! If you can't find who I am thinking of easily, pop by and I'll give it a go for you. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 23:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Hmm, can't find any Mikes in the RFA talk, and I'm too lazy to check back through all the previous RfAs. I don't want you to spend hours in there either, so I guess I'll just enjoy my spoils for now. {{mono|:D}} Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 23:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::User:Mike Halterman is your man. If you check User talk:Mike Halterman and the archives you'll see probably 1/3 of the RfA thanks, little gifts, etc include "That's Hot!" because it's his tagline. I found it by searching via google for "that's hot Mike" and restricting the domain to en.wikipedia.org... 1 minute search! Works amazingly better than our own internal search. Hope that helps! ++Lar: t/c 23:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've added answers and an acceptance to my RfA page. I'll let you add it to the main one; my edit count has changed since your original nomination, so you may want to change it to reflect that. I'd have done so myself, but I'm on a borrowed computer that isn't running the Interiot tool correctly. Gracias. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 01:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

:Done. And you got a tough question already from Dark Mark! :) ++Lar: t/c 02:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

::Whew, that was a close one. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 02:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Lar. Regarding your comment at Peta Holmes' talk page, I don't think you have bent the rules at all, because they were created at 17 and 19hrs on May 17, so there are still 14 hours to go until May 22, when the deadline is. Also, the message from Atlantahawk that he left my page, didn't affect me at all, although I can understand if Phaedriel was hurt by his characterization of her. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 03:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

::well I will bend them a bit if I want, I have selected others that were over the line. I figure whoever does the work (did I mention how tedious it is?) gets to do a little bending here and there. ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

...for doing a great (and I am afraid thankless) job of updating the DYK box. Sorry if I messed up when I was trying to help - you wont believe it, but I missed the big red letters when I pressed Edit section. Please see my proposal to improve the DYK process at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Template:Did_you_know/Next. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

:Hey no worries. You're an admin, feel free to take a turn.... ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

for the birthday wishes! :) - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Smolensk (1943) was nominated for FAC today. You're welcome to support it or to address your criticisms... Thanks! :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lar, that {{tl|UpdatingDYK}} template I made is pretty useless ;-) looking at the DYK template history, I edited it when you had mistakenly left it in place. If I (the author) can't even spot it, what use is it? I think your updating text on the talk page is coming along, but probably needs to be moved down to the head of the Suggestions section for greater visibility. It's not something I would use because I obviously have a different sequence of updating than you have, but just a thought. I think {{tl|UpdatingDYK}} can be deleted now if you have no objections, there are no comments on the talk page, let me know what you think. Happy updating. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

:I use it... maybe it needs more whitespace around it and the note left in a big textbox with a border etc??? ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

::I tried to differentiate it with asterisks, but it's not visible enough. The problem is being only visible in the text box limits the options for making it stand out - no markup options. More whitespace sounds good, so that in the typical (25 row??) edit box it's the only thing that's seen first. Plus some more characters to create a border as you say. I might knock something up. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Let me give it a go ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

:::LOLZ - U need MORE whitespace DOOD --Cactus.man ✍ 18:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in this article on Little Artists. Tyrenius 02:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:Known about these guys for a while, actually (the LEGO community is small and many of us know most of the rest of us so to speak). They've monetised their hobby much more effectively than I have (www.miltontrainworks.com to see), that's for sure. Glad to see they got an article here and thanks for the pointer! 03:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should get in touch and suggest a joint project! Tyrenius 14:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:Hehe, maybe. They're rather artsy though, and are not averse to mutilating bricks, which is a big nono for me. There is also the "LEGO Certified Professional" program which many artists are in. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel myself getting sucked into simple bloody-mindedness here.

• I don't want to end up digging my heels in needlessly, but I object in the strongest possible way to how this is being done. It's the sledgehammer approach, and it gets my back up.
• I can see some justification for politely asking people to limit their sigs, but the complaints about "making discussions hard to follow" are just bizarre to me. Do we not use preview?
• The condescention combined with the willful ignoring of the fact that people are using these sigs... Whose opinion is more important here?

Please send some soothing vibes my way...
brenneman^{L} 05:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:Far out brussle sprout. I'm bowing out of this particular bit of stupidity. I'm pulling my hair out, though, at the irony. I've been accused of not acknowledging the validity of someone else's argument? Are we bloody kidding?

So one or two people claim to be having a hard time finding the forest for the trees. Must we dance now? It should stick out like a dog's balls that the number of people not complaining dominates over the number of people who are complaining like horseradish on a hotdog. I am simply fed up to *hand motion* here with pushy editing. What's so bloody wrong with saying "Here's what I think." and then stepping back? I mean, jumping jesus on a pogo stick, the hubris involved...

I'm off to the pub.
brenneman^{L} 08:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

::Off to the pub and leave it be might well be good approach. Someone else being brought in (someone other than me, since Tony and I have history too) might be just what is needed. Sort of don't want to get involved myself at the moment as I've been involved in my own little bit of unpleasantness and haven't been paying close attention. I could use some feedback there, actually. Offwiki might be best.++Lar: t/c 12:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Very funny, but who could possibly make one out our calmest admins... oh. I see. Yes indeed-ee, email coming right at you. - brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman^{L} ] 12:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"Needs a better hook I think "I was just wondering what this comment ment on the DYK page. --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 10:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:It means the phrase that describes the article does not "hook" the reader in to wanting to read the article very well, it's not catchy enough due to how it's worded, (and a reword would fix it) or the facts presented are not interesting enough (and the article should be examined to see if there is a catchier fact that could be used). DYK is not just a trivia listing... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi {{PAGENAME}}. Well, as we unprotected the List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes a while ago, were right back on it. Users are vandalizing the page, way to much. I think that we should wait until about 2-4 more vandals vandalize the page. Just to let you know--I might be thinking about page protection. Look at the edit history. Anways. ForestH2 ^{(discuss | contribs)}

Hi Larry! Thank you very much for your support of my request for adminship. I especially appreciated the support of fellow Esperanzans, as I know they have the highest standards of civility. Thanks again, and please leave me a message if you ever see something I could be doing better. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for helping to resolve my dispoute over copyright and socialist international. However, I'm a bit sad that you didn't send a thankyou note for supporting your rfa, like you said you were gonna do for everyone who did ;-). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragon695 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 23 May 2006.

:You are very welcome. As for the thank you... haha (blush), well I have this note drafted that adverts my tool/project that I am working on that people can use, but since my project isn't ready I have been procrastinating and now it's way late and etc... kinda how you get embarrassed about sending out wedding thank yous when its a year later etc... I still plan to though... ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really need it; I just thought it would be helpful in the merge (I don't really know what state it was in). If it's that bad, then I won't bother using it, so it doesn't need undeletion. --Rory096 05:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

SPAM WARNING - quasi form letter follows! (#5)

I'm attempting to open the biggest can of worms ever. You've expressed similar feelings to mine regarding the role of the administrator, so I'd like to hear your thoughts on the category I've just created.
brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman^{L} ] 07:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! --Merovingian {T C @} 01:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 04:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You left a message about this one my talk page. I didn't realize Handbook images aren't allowed, so that's why it had to go. No one bothered to tell me that, though, they just kept reverting it. I guess new guys are expected to know every rule like the back of their hand before ever making a single edit. That may be a good idea in theory, but in practice it's soul crushing. Biff Loman 11:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:That's a good point, and it's definitely a problem. When I was a newbie, one of my articles got nominated for AFD. It was quite distressing. --kingboyk 13:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lar. Plan of action:

• Get your RFA thanks out now! You're almost a seasoned admin already!
• Finish your code to simply trawl the categories, remove duplicates (not remove from the categories, but remove from the output), and output tables. I think your code is not far off being able to do this much already? Note: We need a "GA" grade for articles assessed as GOOD.
• Don't worry about adding any other extra whizzbang features, see next two points.
• Moving the already-done assessments into the new tables can be carried out manually with cut and paste. We can do it collectively, or if nobody else is interested I undertake do it myself.
• Mathbot trawls a tree of categories containing talk pages to produce it's lists. I've modified {{tl|WPKLF}} with some conditional code I knocked up in my sandbox (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_KLF#Wikipedia_1.0 and Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index_of_subjects#So.2C_how_do_we_use_it.3F) and I think we can use the same code/concept for WP:Beatles. Basically, at it's default an article sits in the "unassessed" category. When it's been assessed, the Project talk page template gets a new parameter (FA, GA, A, B etc) which modifies the category it lives in. Every so often Mathbot will trawl the categories and update the list. Sweet, huh?

--kingboyk 13:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:Or... do you want to ditch our tables, and use exclusively Mathbot's tables? That would be fine too, as long as there's some way for us to include comments and some of the extra material we have without the bot overwriting it each time it runs. Anyway, {{tl|WPBeatles}} has been updated with conditional code and usage instructions. Categories are currently red, I may attend to that in a moment or I may wait and see if the KLF categories are picked up by the bot first. Not sure yet :) --kingboyk 13:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's my thinking... Mathbot generated tables do so with a template invocation per table row rather than just hardcoding the cells in. I think I can change my script to invoke that template pretty easily. So we could have a generated table that LOOKED like Mathbot's in format (including default importance as well). The ranking info, we switch over to using their cell colors and names, (and I add to theirs the ones missing for merge). I'll get a new category dump, run the whole thing, generate blank tables, and then when we move articles in by hand we have to merge where we have two partial rows or conflicting rankings into just one row. I saw where you changed {{tl|WPKLF}}. As you say, we should change {{tl|WPBeatles}} the same way. Except! We should take ALL the possible rankings as parameters, not just FA and good, because we have a lot of articles already ranked (I understand why you did't for KLF though). I'm hazier about that part but it doesn't have to be sussed for me to do a blank table gen run. It only has to be sussed when we ask people to go to all the articles that have it and add the ranking info. (actually that could be done by a bot... if I get this done maybe?) As for RFA thanks I was holding off because I wanted to advert that I could generate these sorts of tables for people. Let me see what I can do tonite, I'll just ignore DYK and IRC and work on this. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:I've already updated the Beatles template to cover FA, GA, A, B, Start, Stub, unassessed, and "needs action" (nom for AFD, merge, etc). It might have been better to put the param for grading as param 1 rather than param 2, but tis done now, and I've AWB updated all category, portal and wikipedia articles using the template. As a result, all known mainspace articles - and only known mainspace articles - are in :Category:Unassessed Beatles articles (all 574 of them).

:Yes, KLF is a special case because there's no point categorising our articles as they probably won't make it unless FA; whereas I guess all Beatles songs/albums would stand a decent chance.

:If you think what I've done so far is OK, great. But, if not, best give me a shout before I start making too many changes. --kingboyk 13:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC) PS I know why you're waiting to get your RFA thanks out. My advice is, if you are going to send them, send them now. You can promote your script later on by spamming the WikiProjects!

:I've made a few "proof of concept" taggings, for articles in cat Beatles letter "A" - see WP:TBA#A. --kingboyk 14:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:: Seems good so far... I set up the A and B class category pages cribbing from the chemistry b class category page but referencing our scheme as well... see what you think. I am not sure I agree that merge/delete/AFD belong in unclassified though (maybe, but not sure). Also I think the TheBeatles Article template itself needs to do the "this article is tagged as class mumble" the way chemistry does. I am going to take a whack at adding that code to the template but it may be a nasty bit of surgery. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:::"merge/delete/AFD" aren't in "unassessed" (or at least they won't be, if my scheme is adopted and they're tagged). They use the param "Other" which will put them in a currently redlinked category that I plan to be a subcat of :Category:WikiProject The Beatles articles and not a subcat of Mathbot's Beatles tree. Good idea re displaying the grading (although the category will appear at the bottom of the talk page, and our template is already crowded so let's see how it looks...) --kingboyk 14:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Your new category pages look good. --kingboyk 14:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

::::OK let's have M/D/AFD be subcats of other or something, I agree they should not be mathbot tracked but I think there is merit in having them categorised separately. re the tagging displayed, There is space on the template below the pic I think... I have to suss out how chem does it though, the templates are different in that we have more parms etc. Not undoable though. I have downloaded the latest category dump in prep for doing a run to see that things still work before I try any code changes to move to the templatised rows (did you comment on that bit?) also, how to handle articles that have more than one classification??? It would be faster to do this talking on IM but this records the info where we can see it. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

::::We have a minor problem, can you fix it? All the articles are showing up under T for talk in the alpha list of articles in the A/B class cat. :Category:B-Class_Beatles_articles to see what I mean. Can we pipe the article name in after the category in your invocation? PAGENAME may not be the exact right var to use as that may still carry the Talk on the front, not sure. I am doing surgery on that (thebeatlesarticle) template now so let me see if I can fix it. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::Dunno. Your change didn't seem to fix it. If you find a solution please fix {{tl|WPKLF}} too :) --kingboyk 14:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

::::::Yes it did. Take a look at B class now. Where articles sort in categories is not an instant change, it requires a background process to execute which sometimes gets a bit behind. NEW category adds do take effect right away. Richard Lester is now under R instead of T. That's actually not RIGHT as he should be under L since that's his last name. I am not sure how to fix that without really deep hacking or adding another parm, I suspect we may be the first project that has a lot of names so the first to run into that? I will not change KLF till I get the article class tos how up in the box itself which is tricky... ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

(reindent) ... so DON'T run off and AWB all the articles into categories just yet... we may want to add a third parm with the category sort order, not sure... let me think. ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:It hasn't worked for :Category:Unassessed Beatles articles, and the job queue is empty. Maybe you simply omitted that one? I'll check. AWB run already done for non-mainspace articles; unclassified mainspace articles don't need to be touched as they default to "unassessed". I think "R" for "Richard Lester" is perfectly adequate, this isn't a category tree for readers so it doesn't have to be perfect. --kingboyk 15:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:OK, it works. KLF updated too. Cheers man. --kingboyk 15:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

::I only did A and B, not all of them yet. I would not update KLF yet till I get the article type to show... ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm not worried about that for the KLF. Plan there is to keep things simple. --kingboyk 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

::I like it! Looks great and doesn't make the template any bigger. We have a truly state-of-the-art piece of work there I feel :) --kingboyk 16:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm still trying to get it all to align nicely. I wish I could force it to be the same size as the pic above it. But maybe if I make the background the same as the messagebox? Whatever, that can be tweaked later. Now I'm ready to move on.. have to do some actual IBM work though... Maybe YOU see if you can tweak it to make it just right? ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

::::I'll have a go. Hold your horses on tagging any more talk pages. I'm thinking I might hack the template to take only one parameter. Mathbot found our new cat and will run tonight. Looking good my friend! --kingboyk 18:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::I'm tagging one of every different type for purposes of testing and of creating the right categories, etc... nothing more. Losing the tagging won't suss me, it's testing only. and I will happily change the tags to match a new syntax if you decide to. Note that you can use #ifeq (or the string equivalent) to test for certain values, or, as you did, use #switch++Lar: t/c 18:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

::::::What I'm thinking of doing is testing for one of the known strings, and if none is found assuming that the argument is a descriptive word. I think this will work because only main-space articles need to be assessed, and only non-mainspace articles need a descriptive word other than "article". It will also be safe to leave the template/cat/portal talk pages I've already tagged as they are, because the additional |x param currently in them will be ignored (I presume). Cracked open a beer now so may or may not get it done tonight! --kingboyk 18:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::::It's gonna be harder than I thought. Unless assignment is supported (I can't find any mention of it), I'd have to parse the params 3 or more times (once for the descriptive word, once for the categorisation, and once or more for the display of the grade... unless I hacked your code and did the categorisation at the same time). I also have to work out what your code actually does :) --kingboyk 18:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I'm onto it. It's in my sandbox and almost done :) This is gonna be one hell of a template - easy to use, but complicated - which is how code should be of course! --kingboyk 19:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the list of categories at Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Categories up to date? Can you give it a once over and fix anything that is off? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:It wasn't (the song stubs cat had been renamed but not updated there) but now - as far as I know - it's up to date. --kingboyk 19:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:: User:Lar/Sandbox2#version 9 contains the best I can do without actually fixing the major brokenness in my last version which is not working properly, i went back to the last working version to generate that table. Take a look and see what you think. I may hack some more tomorrow to see why getopts() doesn't work with hash refs across modules... something is wacked there. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually... the history has a version I can't generate any more at the current state of the code

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lar/Sandbox2&oldid=47350701 in that history version 8 does a better job with articles that already have commas in them than the one that is most recent. If we're goint to just cut and run and do the rest by hand... I dunno what to suggest. Too tired to think. ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

:Okie dokey, will look later... now that Mathbot has done his/her work I'll also have a look at that and see if we want to use our own tables at all. I guess we do but let's look at it. (Nice job by Mathbot though, very impressive!) --kingboyk 05:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

::I went in and edited a comment and a couple of importances in (to see what would happen) into Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The Beatles articles by quality... I've half a mind to suggest that we move what we did so far into these tables, and give our scheme up as a bad job, I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 05:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm going back to bed for a while, but I too will look at and think about this further. The author of the bot seems to be a very friendly and helpful chap, so I think if we needed any reasonable mods he'd try to help. One idea that just occurred to me is if the talk page of the article contained an invisible template or block of meta text containing importance, comments, date and username of reviewer it could build the tables just as we had them before, but automagically. Most of my best ideas come when I'm in bed so I'll sleep on it. --kingboyk 05:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

::::If the stuff I stuck in to the tables sticks, that means the bot doesn't mess with that stuff... we can just put the stuff in by hand, no need to invent a new carrier template for the article talk (although that's an interesting idea, I think he just goes off what categories things are in and leaves stuff that is alreadythere in place when he updates the table edxcept for maybe changing the article classifications). It would be a 2 pass process. one pass is to change WPBeatles template invocations to match the ranking (an AWB run would do that fairly easily if you had the current table open in another tab), and on the next day, update the commments (and assign importances). Maybe we transclude the table to where the current one is now? I dunno. Sort of depressed and annoyed at myself for letting the code go so long that I can't remember why it wasn't working right or how to fix it. ++Lar: t/c 05:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::Yes we'll have to see what happens/read up on it. I guess your description is indeed what happens. However, I think my idea would be better suited to the casual project member. We might be able to get folks to use a simple template for asessments, but have them grade the article, and then come back the next day to place comments into the generated table? And what about our non standard ratings? Our tracking of who did the rating? Hold the thought and leave it with me :) Chin up! --kingboyk 05:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC) See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kingboyk/Sandbox&action=edit] for a test case and thoughts. --kingboyk 06:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Kingboyk: we need to talk about these. I've created merge already. I want to create the other ones and I do want to have them set up as not something the bot worriesaobut but I'm not so keen on having them all in the same "other" category. A subcat would be fine I guess... Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:You'll need to change the strings the template looks for then (it's currently just "Other") and I'd suggest creating the cats as subcats of :Category:WikiProject The Beatles articles. --kingboyk 21:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

::I'll give it a go later. As long as you're not opposed. Your link is was red though. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Let me do it mate. It'll be easier since I know which bits of code to alter, and you've evidently enough on your plate. Consider it done! --kingboyk 05:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

see m:Help:Magic_words for help with magic words like PAGENAME, ARTICLESPACENAME etc. No magic word for "take the last word and put it at the front" though! ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pentagram&diff=prev&oldid=55238408]. I don't suppose you could also peep though the bushes into MM3K's talk? - brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman^{L} ] 12:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I used to update DYK regularly last year... --BRIAN0918 12:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Lar - the thoughts you expressed there are pretty much inline with mine, and the reason why I'd watchlisted the article whilst waiting to see how others (and in particular Sharon herself) reacted! :) Sharon deserves it, but with the possibility for people to object it turn could negative. I say give her another barnstar or send her a bunch of flowers! --kingboyk 14:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

When you're not tired and stressed from work (because it's a long and technically detailed thread, and because I don't want to waste Oleg's time) please have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index_of_subjects#WikiProject_The_Beatles. There's my request for the features we discussed yesterday, a "but..." statement from User:Kirill Lokshin which is worth considering, and a promise from Oleg to at least look into it. Since he's willing to do that, let's be singing from the same hymn sheet. If he'd do even some of what I've asked for it would be great - his work so far combined with our new improved template is stupendous, I think. --kingboyk 15:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)