User talk:Wikid77

User_talk:Wikid77
This is the talk-page for User:Wikid77 (checked for messages every few days).
Archives: Arch.1 (May06-Feb08) Arch.2 (Mar08-) Arch.3 (Oct08-) Arch.4 (May08-) Arch.5 (Oct09-)

Barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For fixing a complex coding error in Template:Google Inc. when no one else could figure it out! - Ahunt (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth

Your essay Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth looks very good. I would suggest to add an introduction and a link to Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia's growth. As you might know I introduced the 3, 4 and 5M limit as the maximum number of articles on the english wikipedia (the logistic model). This as contrast to the belief that growth was exponential. My model was created in March 2006, THREE YEARS ago. Until this essay I have not seen new models. HenkvD (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Kudos for the work on image placement

Thanks for the effort you put into dealing with the issue of placing images when there is already a floating table. I fear that there were quite a few nights put into it. I'd given up worrying about a response after a week. I'll have to look more carefully at it when I can find the headspace. And thanks for the border + cellpadding tip. Cheers. -- spin^control 23:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For fixing the convert template's ft-in to cm conversion and eliminating significant conversion errors in thousands of articles, I award you this barnstar. And so should WikiProject Basketball! JN466 09:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, if you could do the same thing for {{convert|36|m|ft}} {{convert|37|m|ft}} {{convert|38|m|ft}}, which at the time of writing comes out as 36 metres (120 ft) 37 metres (120 ft) 38 metres (120 ft), ... JN466 09:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

getprecision bug?

When {{getprecision}} is used on a number betweeh 0 and 1, it does seem to be showing the correct precision.

• {{getprecision|0.005}} → Template:Getprecision
• {{getprecision|0.09}} → Template:Getprecision
• {{getprecision|0.88}} → Template:Getprecision
• {{getprecision|-0.88}} → Template:Getprecision

Just wondering if you could take a look? Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Some other examples:

• {{getprecision|5.123}} → Template:Getprecision
• {{getprecision|-5.123}} → Template:Getprecision
• {{getprecision|0.123}} → Template:Getprecision
• {{getprecision|-0.123}} → Template:Getprecision
• {{ordomag|0.123}} → -1

The problem was {Getprecision} has used {ordomag} for amounts < 1, so I submitted an edit-request to round the amount to avoid the problem. Thanks for checking those results. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP concerns about Knox and Sollecito

In reviewing discussions at "Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher" I have noticed concerns that the current article seems to violate WP:BLP balance. In particular:

• Even though they went to trial in January-December 2009, with sentences of 26 & 25 years, upon appealing, their convictions were overturned, and they have been granted a new trial on the evidence, as "presumed innocent" (else why have a trial of a guilty person). They should be considered "suspects" in the case, no longer convicted. Because Guede has already completed his 1st appeal, I am not sure if he can be "presumed innocent" during his 2nd appeal, which is not a full re-trial.
• Their backgrounds, as good students, should be clearly noted for significance, as often noted in news reports. Knox had attended a Prep school and was an honors student while attending the University of Washington, and has continued correspondence classes while in custody, as a college student. Sollecito completed his degree in computer engineering at Univ. of Perugia, while in custody, and has been accepted into graduate school. Such background details are as significant, to their reputations, as noting someone was working as a NASA astronaut when arrested. The point is not that the information is highly-crucial for the reader, but rather it provides a more-balanced view about each person, and has been reported in sources.
• The DNA evidence connecting either Knox or Sollecito to the crime has RFU peaks < 50, whereas the DNA samples matching Guede have RFU peaks above 300. U.S. courts typically do not allow DNA RFU below 50 to be admitted into evidence, and similar levels for British courts should also be noted (+sources), because Knox is American and Kercher was British.
• The heated disputes about the bare blood footprint on the bathmat, as matching either Guede or Sollecito, should be described in a dedicated section, because that was noted in news reports as crucial evidence in the Judge Massei Motivation report.
• The heated disputes about the partial Nike-pattern shoe print on Kercher's white bed pillow, as matching either Guede's Nike Outbreak 2 or Knox's shoe size, should be described in a dedicated section, because that was noted in news reports as crucial evidence in the Judge Massei Motivation report.
• In general, any major evidence that was disputed in linking suspects to the crime should be described, in balance as noted in sources, so that there is no hinting or inferrence that the evidence is considered solid proof if strongly contested.
• In general, major reports which contest the guilt or innocence of the subjects should also be noted, to protect the BLP balance of the article, rather than overly focus on either positive or negative aspects of their lives.
• When it comes to a conclusion of "guilty" or "not guilty" for these suspects, then neither option is an original idea, so the notion of WP:SYNTH is very restricted in this case.

More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for support at ANI

13-Sep-2010: I wish to offer a general note of thanks to those who wrote on rejecting the topic-ban being proposed against me (announced by MLauba above). I also thank those who issued negative remarks because it gives me an idea of how much hostility is still out there, even though I have been "gone" for 3 months from MoMK. Typically, happy people don't dwell on negatives, so it seems Talk:MoMK has retained a hostile aura, even with me gone. Perhaps a better system would have announced this ANI incident and canvassed all concerned to offer opinions within a comfortable time-frame of several days to gain more opinions, assuming some difficulting in judging all the sub-issues involved. So, anyway, I thank those who took the extra time to find my incident and reply. I have no idea when it will be decided; the prior topic ban was rushed by the original admin to be closed within 2 days "before anyone was objecting". So, having several people respond, and object already, has avoided that shortcut condemnation from being used in this case. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Charming. And again I perceive a bitter, "it's-not-fair", "I'm-being-censored", "there's-a-conspiracy", "they-all-have-it-in-for-me" tone to your words which, ironically, only provides further justification for an indefinite ban so that the topic is protected from similar disruption. The blind support of a group of SPA users ultimately means little here. SuperMarioMan 08:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you should take a break from the MoMK article for a period 3 months, as I have done, to focus on numerous other articles, then we can talk again in 3 months (or 92 days), to compare notes. I am sorry that the article has upset you to this extent. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Upset" at the article? The article, in its rewritten form, is now far more readable that it used to be, although full protection has become necessary given a suspicious influx of single-purpose accounts with various agenda. All my edits on this topic have been at the talk page. SuperMarioMan 13:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI replies #4

{{adminhelp}} Please move my last ANI reply to the END of section "Conclude this" at WP:ANI. I am still under a 1-month block, after 3 unblocks were denied, and I need to post the following ANI reply.

Please update section "wp:ANI#Block review: User:Wikid77, violation of topic ban" moving the following copy/paste text, to be appended at the end, at the bottom tail end, NOT the top, but at the very extreme final end, of the section "Conclude this" fixing the phrase "Response from from" to have 1 one "from" in the phrase:

'''''Response from Wikid77:''''' Due to my current edit-block, I have had trouble replying (by admin-edit) at specific points of this ANI discussion. I want to further clarify:
* I did apologize for posting 1 or 2 days before the end date of the prior topic ban, because based on past hostile reactions, I should have asked an admin for the exact date when in doubt about ''anything'' in the hostile area.
* I acknowledge how ''"[[Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher]]"'' has grown into a larger mix of intense disputes, so I will refrain from posting several major suggestions there at one time.
* Some people have imagined that I have watched the numerous MoMK disputes every day during the past 3 months, but I have been distracted by other issues for the summer, so I was unaware of many arguments among 20 new people at Talk:MoMK.
* I further pledge to reduce participation at Talk:MoMK, because finally, I understand the level of disputes which had occurred while I was gone, and now I can see how I returned "like gangbusters" in the middle of disputes I did not realize were hotly contested.
* When people said "disruptive" I was thinking ''disruptive-editing'' such as edit-wars, but finally admin [[User:MLauba]] used the word "inflamed" so I realize that I was seen as raising the level of disputes and hostility which was brewing while I was gone.
* Please remember that I have been blocked or topic-banned for 5.5 months of the past 9 months, so I have had only limited contact with MoMK editors. However, I finally understand that Talk:MoMK was already contentious enough without much input from me, so I will reduce participation due to the current conflicts between the 20-30 people already there.
* I will try to spend more time reading over those 5.5 months of Talk:MoMK while I was gone, before offering more suggestions. Again, I apologize that I came back so strong and caused alarm along with the current disputes ongoing there, which raised stress for the admins who are juggling the current disputes.
I hope you will realize how I was unaware of the numerous severe issues brewing while I was gone, but now I understand why so many people here seem filled with rage, as though I were "adding fuel to the fire" of those prior hostilities, by posting major new suggestions among numerous ongoing disputes. -Wikid77 ([[User_talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 04:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, fix the first phrase "Response from from" to have only 1 "from" in the phrase, and move that ANI reply to the tail end of the section "Conclude this" after time-stamp 01:36, 16 September 2010, at the bottom of that section, NOT above it.

Thank you for moving that reply within the WP:ANI page. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done  pablo 11:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Update Convert/numdisp for parser errors

{{editprotected}} The number-display Template:Convert/numdisp needs to be changed to use parameter questionmark "{?}" to avoid parser errors. Line 1 of the template should be the following copy/paste text:
{{Convert/numdisp/a<noinclude>{{{?}}}</noinclude>|{{#titleparts:{{{1}}}|1|1}}|{{#titleparts:{{{1}}}|1|2}}}}<noinclude>
After update, the template should simply display the template coding, rather than red parser-error lines.

Expected: {{Convert/numdisp}} gives:  {{Convert/numdisp/a{{{?}}}|{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}}}

Currently: {{Convert/numdisp}} gives:  Template:Convert/numdisp

Expected: {{Convert/numdisp|2+1/3}} gives:  Template:Convert/numdisp

Currently: {{Convert/numdisp|2+1/3}} gives:  Template:Convert/numdisp

Inserting parameter {?} should stop the red errors, while having no effect on a calculated conversion, in any article, because of using <noinclude> tags. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

wikilawyering

I see people have accused you of wikilawyering. Yet some of those accusations have wikilawyering themselves.

The best course of action is to act like a model Wikipedian. I do not know exactly if you have or haven't but try to start. Be the better man (or woman).

I know nothing of you except your interest in Amanda Knox. I am puzzled why the resistance to an article for her. If it is because they want Wikipedia to be upright and proper, I understand. However, there are lots of articles about less famous murderers and lots of articles about popular stuff, like video games. Doesn't seem to make sense to me. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Location map 100x100

Template:Location map 100x100 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BELIEFS

A long time ago you were part of the discussion on the WP:BELIEFS proposal. I went away for a while and I am trying to come back slowly, so I thought I would start with updating that page and reactivating the conversation. Please join in if you still would like to be part of that discussion. Low Sea (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

File permission

• File:Gary Kildall older style.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you explain how it came to be that you came across this official photo and decided it was cc? Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC) thumb|right|185px|Generic male figure adapted from Replace_this_image_male.svg.

• I had painted that image (not one pixel matches the original), based on a photo that I had seen; however, as I understand now, it is not acceptable to paint images, similar to the original, to avoid copyright concerns. At this point, I have replaced that image with a "male-outline" figure, until another image can be approved. Do you know a document which explains how to paint an image, with sufficient variation, so as to not "appear" to be a copy. I have had formal art-drawing lessons, so I was taught to create images very close to the original, but now, one man's "Realism" is another man's plagiarism. Perhaps if I drew an image from a different angle, then that would be acceptable. Thanks for letting me know about that image, because I did not realize someone had moved it into Commons without notifying me. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The aim here is to create a genuinely free (libre) encyclopaedia; not to plagiarise others' works, and then try to cover it up (quite literally in this case it seems). —Sladen (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
    • AGF. Rich Farmbrough, 17:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC).
      

The document you may be looking for is Commons:COM:DW. If unsure, you might try asking at Commons:Commons talk:Licensing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Followup: do you think it's still a legit image? I'm thinking no - and actually a better link is Commons:COM:CB#Drawings based on photographs. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Template transclusion

I have had these problems in the past, although I believe the limit was 8, when working on string reversing templates. What are you currently trying to achieve? I may be able to help. Rich Farmbrough, 17:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

• There has been much frustration when using {Convert} inside complex infoboxes, which nest other templates plus if-else logic nested over 8-to-11 levels deep. Meanwhile, we are "putting Convert on an anorexia diet" to remove as many levels of nesting as possible, because Convert reached 30-deep nesting for some engineering measurements, in their infoboxes. I am trimming Template:Precision to less nesting. Fortunately, User:Plastikspork changed {{Documentation}} to remove 3? levels of nesting. Hence, we *ALL* want to raise the MediaWiki nesting/transclusion depth limit to 100 (or at least 60) to allow infoboxers to nest if-elses, a whole bunch, while then using the most elaborate features of Convert for 2-part or 3-part conversions. Plus, imagine the near future: someone uses a great infobox, with nested if-else to validate parameters, then includes one of those curved maps (with the Russian user's sine/cosine transforms to bend latitude-longitude lines), and then hey, let's use Convert (in the map caption) to give the km/miles distance from Moscow to Anchorage, under the map, in the infobox, PLUS put all that in a doc-page example of using curved maps in the great infobox. For older mainstream computers, that would be no problem, but MediaWiki currently cannot nest if-else beyond 40(!) levels deep. That needs to be raised ASAP. I cannot imagine there is a real efficiency issue that thwarts use of 50 or 60, or even 100 nested if-else expressions. This is not excessive: it is the real world when expert engineers start displaying technical polar maps plus measurements. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  I suspect I only reduced the {{documentation}} template by 1 level, but I am looking to do a bit more. By the way, Rich is currently blocked, and historically doesn't have a watch list, so you may want to ping him. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I have a similar situation (I believe) with {weather box} which displays fine on the documentation page, but not on the documentation page on the template page. I'm actually fine with 40 levels of nesting, if we had string parser functions for almost everything - convert is an interesting case and one which is not without its philosophical problems, and might even be better served by a tool-server based bot. Rich Farmbrough, 14:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

The bug is at Template:Bug Rich Farmbrough, 15:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

Convert/numdisp

I detected a very minor error (spurious newline), so I rolled back the change to the template. As far as I can tell, it should be an easy fix, just sprinkle in some comment tags around the newlines in one of the subtemplates, but I wasn't able to see it immediately. I swapped the order of the columns in your table to show the problem. Thanks and ping me if you want me to try again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Location map polarx

Do we still need {{Location map polarx}}? New features were added to {{Location map}} awhile ago, which makes this work. As far as I could tell, it was only being used in Canadian NWT articles, which were dramatically simplified with this new feature, since they support {{Location map}} templates. If you think we can get rid of it, I will nominate it for deletion. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am not yet familiar with all new features of {Location map}, but there were many planned uses for {Location map polarx}, which can place markers, quickly, on sections of maps, not just evenly curved maps. It is relatively simple to use, as it does not require knowledge of sine/cosine transforms. Also {Location map polarx} provides a precedent in Wikipedia, showing when curved maps were first supported, as a stepping stone to other possible types of maps. Also, it provides evidence of impact of the January-2008 update to the MediaWiki parser, as a milestone in better support for templates. So, I think there is more potential for using {Location map polarx} in future work, still. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Meters per day and feet per day

Wikid, Please look at Template talk:Convert#Meters per day and feet per day and Template talk:Convert#New use for "disp=/" below that. Peter Horn User talk 18:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Masai Mara

I'm not sure what happened causing your edits to be undone, but looking at the history, what I thought was a simple edit to fix a reference (removing two characters) seems to have "reverted" your edits just prior to that. It was NOT intentional, and I apologize for the extra work caused. Donlammers (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

How-to vs. Essay

Hi Wikid77. The Wikipedia How-to template recently was expanded to include a sort-by= parameter, which allows using the template only to categorize the page instead of the template and a separate category tag. I started going through the Category:Wikipedia how-to listings to update the Wikipedia How-to template on each page and came across your efforts categorized both as essays and how-tos. Wikipedia essays include comments and advice and Wikipedia how-tos include instructions. Wikipedia How-to essays ‎are more in the line of advise on how to balance NPOV, how to get along with others, etc. Several of the essays you posted seem more in line with Category:Wikipedia how-to and Category:Wikipedia how-to proposals than Wikipedia essays. I think Wikipedia how-to carries more weight and I revised one of your postings, Wikipedia:Advanced Convert coding, to be a Wikipedia how-to. I figured that, before I go and mess up the rest of your good work, I'd better get your input. If you don't like what I did to Wikipedia:Advanced Convert coding, I would be happy to change it back and leave the rest of your essay categorization alone. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Another three way conversion

Wikid77, Please see Template talk:Convert#Another three way conversion. Peter Horn User talk 17:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Xsign again

Thank you for your help in the past on this template. There seems to have been some regression ([1])? The 32; bits are back instead of raw spaces. Best regards, –xeno^talk 21:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have a plan "#Xsign needs space-savvy username substring" (below), to fix these problems of inserting &#32 in usernames containing spaces. -Wikid77 15:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Xsign needs space-savvy username substring

03-Dec-2010: Here is a plan. The main problem is insertion of &#32 in usernames with spaces ("UserX of Blanks"), due to Template:Xsign using {{str_right}} to extract the username. User:Patrick has a new {{strr}} (from 01Sep10) to act like {str_right} but contain real spaces. That leads to a plan:

• STEP 1: Change {Xsign} to use {strr} or an equivalent space-savvy substring template.
• STEP 2: Update {strr} and each of its cascading templates to have separate {Documentation} /doc subpage (to hold interwiki links when the real-blanks concept goes global).
• STEP 3: Protect all those templates, with the rationale that they are cascading from a high-use template. NOTE: Every string-function template, unprotected this year, WAS hacked ("vandalized"), and most were re-protected. Hence, the rampant-change fear (that good code was reverted) is valid: in October/November 2010, many string templates were hacked to break.

I think that gives a workable plan to "stop this crap". Many people would not expect &#32 to be inserted, especially since {str_left} gives real spaces, while {str_right} does not. Using {str_len} counts each hidden &#32:

• {str_right|1234 UserX of Blanks|5} → "UserX of Blanks" (actually: UserX&#32;of&#32;Blanks)
• {strr |1234 UserX of Blanks|5}       → "UserX of Blanks" (with 2 real blanks)
• {str len |{strr |1234 UserX of Blanks|4}} → 15   (omits the lead blank)
• {str len|{str_right|1234 UserX of Blanks|4}} → 15   (counts 3 blanks, each with length 5, &#32;)

Thanks for letting me know the problem still existed. I did not remember much about this, due to severe "mind-fry" from translating German Wikisource pages (and new {{Wikisource_German}}). I did not realize so many string templates had been un-protected during 2010, only to find ("Golly gosh darn!"), they were ALL totally botched when unprotected. Note that those &#32 spaces do not occur in the Xsign date/time, only in usernames with spaces, so you can determine the priority of making changes to the templates. We must act on the realization that 95% of "vanduhlism" (not a personal-attack word) comes from IP addresses; we must change policies to pre-protect templates (before they are hacked) to ease people's fear that Wikipedia is unreliable info-mush. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Wikid77. Do you edit using any other account names? pablo 22:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I did in the past, on the MoMK article, but that was considered a form of improper WP:Sockpuppet, so I only use "Wikid77" now. The catch-22 problem with the 2nd username was, when correcting the postings of the prior username then I used the prior username, in an attempt to avoid violating the rule against tampering with postings by "another username" but that violated the sock-puppet rule about not using 2 usernames, mixed, in a single discussion. It was a catch-22: either way I violated a rule, so logically, there was no way to switch usernames and keep the older messages accurate. The policy needs to be fixed to allow that. If you want to use a 2nd username, in a single discussion, then double-check your older messages to fix typos first, before announcing a new identity to move forward. Of course, these are only suggestions, please re-read WP:Sockpuppet, and feel free to make your own decisions in these matters. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with this, I just spotted another editor whose style is very similar to yours and wondered whether it was a legitimate alternative account.  pablo 00:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Wikid77/AK

User:Wikid77/AK, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikid77/AK and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Wikid77/AK during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SuperMarioMan 23:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Proxying

Hi Wikid, I note that PhanuelB is asking you to copy screeds of information across to other user's pages. Whilst there is some leeway here (for example, there was no problem with copying across his !vote on the MfDs - they were after all his userpages), by copying such material to multiple pages you would effectively be proxying for him. If he wishes to contact other editors he can always email them to ask them to glance at his page - he has not been blocked with email disabled. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 10:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• And I've just noticed this - "Text about "police" in general does not seem to be an issue for WP:BLP which applies to named living persons. Proof must be submitted that those police are not deceased now.". No - if there is no evidence to the contrary, you must assume that they are alive - see WP:BDP. Seriously Wikid, if you're going to give advice to Phanuel, it really must be correct - is it any wonder he doesn't understand how BLP works? Having said that, the only advice you should be giving him at the moment is how to appeal his unblock; that's the purpose of access to a talkpage when blocked. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB was trying to initiate an arbitration, based on the sandbox contents and other related texts, for fear that an unblock would be denied and not be granted (after all the prior denials). However, I don't think he realizes that repeating claims of "false allegations" is similar to standing on streetcorners and repeatedly claiming, "The girl killed her roommate in Perugia". Is there some essay or project page which explains how "due process" in Wikipedia advises to file complaints, rather than keep repeating claims on every page? No hurry on this. Thanks for sacrificing the time to respond to all the other issues. Amanda Knox has been shown on the U.S. major network TV news for 2 weekends, so that is why thousands of people have come to Wikipedia this month. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick reply before I head for the pub :) It depends what you mean by arbitration. If Phanuel wants ArbCom to look at his block, he either needs to email the link given previously. There is a separate process (WP:BASC) but that is for banned users, rather than blocked ones. If he wants to raise an arbitration case about the Knox/Kercher situation then the place for that is WP:RFAR. Obviously, he can't raise a case himself because he's blocked; the best thing to do, again, would be to contact the Committee to explain the situation. I'm guessing they'd probably look at his block first before the wider situation, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:MoMK

Hi - I've revdeleted your addition to the talkpage for the time being because I'm a bit concerned about its BLP aspects (per Guede). Have you a reliable source for any of this (apart from the "censored Micheli report" which of course we can't verify)? If you have I'll quite happily put it back. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:49, 27 December 2010

• Oops. I figured I should have linked the source: "Tribunale di Perugia, sentenza del 28 ottobre 2008 - Penale.it", Dr. Paolo Micheli, Penale.it, web: Micheli-J: at text "Ribadiva poi di aver toccato più o meno dappertutto nella stanza, anche con le mani sporche di sangue, senza tuttavia spiegare come mai una sua impronta si trovasse proprio sul cuscino sotto il cadavere, quando egli ricordava il cuscino regolarmente sopra il letto, dove si trovavano anche la giacca e la borsa che la ragazza aveva posato rientrando in casa." -Wikid77 (talk) 04:21, revised 04:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, no problem, it's always best to link a source though even for the least contentious of things on this article :) Black Kite (t) (c) 06:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing Template:Automatic taxobox

Wikid77, could you review the code for Template:Automatic taxobox? The template will eventually be used on hundreds of thousands of wikipedia articles. It has been in development for the past few months. However, it has a few squirrely aspects still remaining. Due to the high impact of the template, it should be reviewed extensively by someone with good template coding skills. Xeno recommends I ask you and User:Patrick (who has this almost identical post/request on his user talk page). Requests have been placed for input, but no feedback has been gotten as of yet, possibly due to the Western holidays. The template does require a thorough review by knowledgeable editors prior to full roll out. Thanks, --Kleopatra (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have begun reading the internal coding of Template:Automatic taxobox, which seems like the start of being an infobox wizard to generate parameters for Template:Taxobox. There might be extensive extra processing required to generate the classification hierarchy of each higher level of omitted parent taxon. For typical template documentation (in a /doc subpage), all parameters of the template should be listed in a table of parameter names, with a short description of each parameter. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little lost in the world of templates. I do know that the type of errors that have occurred with the use of these automatic taxonomy templates indicate that there are problems in the underlying code. There is a discussion here about problems. Thanks for looking at this, it really does need examined by editors with expertise in templates and coding. --Kleopatra (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Archived 2011

I archived 31 topics of 2011 in /Archive_6. -Wikid77 17:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for a month for making personal attacks, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikid77. Fram (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.

• Well, bless your little heart, and at least you didn't blame it on "Amanda Knox" like some others. I suspected with many users away on normal summer vacations, there just weren't enough other users to block. I will continue to think that people referring to me as "cowardly" is a WP:NPA vio, but, anyway, have a nice day! -Wikid77 19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Such indirect disparagement of other editors (and this is by no means the first) has the distinction of being cowardly as well as offensive.
There it is, in full. It refers to your editing habits; repeatedly attempting to coach and recruit editors whom you see as sympathetic to you and your cause. You can take it as a personal attack if you wish, I can see why you would choose to do so. And I do not particularly care whether you do. pablo 19:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Pablo X, I am sorry that you are still upset. Ironically, I always thought that you were one of the most intelligent editors on Wikipedia, but you rarely said much, and I never followed your edits on other articles. Then this situation occurs, and someone invents the phrase "slow unintelligent editors" from nowhere: I didn't state that phrase, and you didn't state it, but there it is. Working with other editors can be a slow-motion process. There is the old adage, "An elephant is a horse designed by committee" and committees of people can perform at a lower level then the individual members would typically expect. I regret that people have questioned your intelligence in this situation, and when I return from Wikibreak, perhaps I can find other ways to let people know you are a very intelligent editor. I think the impromptu committees at WP:ANI often go awry and imagine problems which do not really exist. Remember that committees often veer out of control, and that no single person should be blamed for the result. I will think of other ways to let people know that you are an intelligent editor. Please do not let events on this one website upset you. There are hundreds of other websites where you can participate. -Wikid77 08:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent straw-mannish bullshit-laden reply, as usual. I can assure you that I am not in the least upset. Unlike you, I do not care about issues of guilt or innocence on that article, (but I do care that they are reported accurately). I do not care whether you, or anyone else, think me intelligent, unintelligent or anywhere in between.
However, I can understand why you have observed that "committees of people can perform at a lower level then the individual members would typically expect" - I would think that your presence on any committee would indeed have that effect on its performance. pablo 09:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Failure of WP:GOCE backlog drive

I regret that the WP:GOCE May backlog drive failed to clear the remaining 15? articles from 2009, which would have been simple to edit them, quickly, for rudimentary cleanup and untag them. There is just not sufficient organization, yet, to focus and get good editors to help. -Wikid77 19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Reminder: WIKIBREAK

I am still on Wikibreak (despite the failed attempts to anger me), so I might be slow to reply ...oh wait, did I just use the word "slow"...?  Anyway, just a leave a message below, and I will try to get back every few days. Enjoy the break ("We've been having fun all summer long...").   -Wikid77 19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per the discussion here, you are indefinitely topic-banned by the community from all edits related to the Murder of Meredith Kercher affair. This is to be broadly construed, i.e. covering all persons and institutions related to the case, and it covers both article and talk edits. This restriction will be logged at WP:RESTRICT and can be appealed to the community or to Arbcom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)