User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive-2006-09

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
If you are here at the top of the page, you are lost. Go here instead.

WP link on WT:RFV

I was just about to delete the link to WP:AFD at the top of WT:RFV as some kind of strange vandalism, until I noticed that you're the one who put it there. Did you have a reason in mind? —scs 23:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Of is in place (with a handful or two others) for inter-project cooperation. We get most of our visitors here from there. Of those visitors passing through, who normally find themselves comfortable in any wiki environment, it is kindof pointless to aggravate them by not having the expected shortcuts. And that much nicer, if they actually go to the correct, corresponding place here. --Connel MacKenzie 02:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand why someone at Wiktionary's requests for verification would need a quick link to Wikipedia's requests for deletion, but if you say so... —scs 13:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I completely misunderstood your question. You are talking about the {{wikipedia}} link in section 0 of WT:RFV? I didn't find a particularly good place for that - but the intent was to find entries that are marked for deletion on Wikipedia (when someone comes along claiming that something must be a word, since Wikipedia has it - cleverly omitting the fact that Wikipedia hasn't deleted it yet.) Yes, remove it if you think it is just too goofy. --Connel MacKenzie 16:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Spanish inflection templates

There are various Spanish templates that you be helpful on pages like jugador. See Good luck! —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Thank you very much - but I don't speak Spanish. So I'm only doing the simple changes that are required to make the ==Spanish== required headings recognizable (i.e. removing blanks at end of lines!) and other minor obvious things. I hope that someone (like you?) can make them better. --Connel MacKenzie 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Your IRC logs must be more extensive then mine, the most incriminating thing I've found was the fact that I told FN that my Email addr was "". 16:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd e-mail you the logs...if you had an account that I could click on "E-mail this user"... --Connel MacKenzie 16:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Just let me know a distinctive phrase that was used during the conversation or in the background and I'll search my logfile directory; I may already have it. 16:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Whoever said that was a noxious troll and impersonator. I've NEVER created an account on Wiktionary with intent to contribute with it, and for that matter have probably never created an account on Wiktionary at all. 23:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


I believe the correct spelling is nihil. And, may I ask (since no one else seems to care) why you are blocking those addresses? The word you used seems to imply worthlessness, but I'm not sure if you understand it . . .--Hurray MH 09:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


[1]. Cheers, — Vildricianus 11:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 18:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


You made a weird assertion here. I don't think it is any kind of Americanism, just a popular misspelling. artificial is most certainly the correct word, also in AmE. — Vildricianus 11:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Argh. --Connel MacKenzie 13:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:

This is me, I've redirected the page. See Template:Tlx! <g> Cheers! // FrankB 23:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

RU around? // FrankB 03:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Um, "Insclusion" ? Robert Ullmann 04:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Was the "thank you" you left on my talk page meant for me, or someone else? —scs 19:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the pointers, but I would never use a template to welcome someone, anyway.
(And at any rate, mine wasn't a welcome; he'd already been welcomed, so to speak.)scs 20:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Curly apostrophe

Please note that on en.wikt:, the ASCII apostrophe "'" is the only character we use in headwords.

The entry itself can use the "correct" apostrophe on the inflection line (and should) but article linking never works correctly when it is in the headword.

--Connel MacKenzie 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that it was never used in headwords, and I don't understand the reason: linking should not be a problem, if the redirection (ascii -> curly) is systematic. Is there some other reason I don't see? Lmaltier 16:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the curly apostrophe doesn't work in "search." The Lucene search may have fixed this part-time, but the Lucene search is not always turned on (and is never up-to-date.) See Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/July-September 05#.2AReplacement of apostrophes. --Connel MacKenzie 16:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... random observation - if there is a redirect, couldn't a person just search for the word with an ASCII apostrophe, and the search would find it; and redirect the person to the correct page? Or does the search function not include redirect pages in the results? Beobach972 01:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that there are five different searches. Go/Search when server load is low, Go/Search when server load is high and google search when performance is atrocious. The Lucene search is a subset of the "search" functionality; I'm unclear what the circumstances are for that to be invoked. --Connel MacKenzie 02:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • By "headword" do you mean the word in bold in the section under the part of speech, variously known here as the "headword section" or the "inflection line"? Or do you mean the "article title"? "Headword" is dictionary jargon. "Article title" is a wiki term. — Hippietrail 01:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    Article title. --Connel MacKenzie 01:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Blankscreen

Thanks. The reboot seems to have solved the problem. 05:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC) NickW557 on Wikipedia English


Recently I extended underwrite and undertake just to find you've replayed my changes. Regarding underwrite, it does have an intransitive form, so why not adding it? For the collocations, I believe they make a lot of sense for learners and disambiguate the words use in context. 09:07, 10 September 2006 (CET) Christian Kissig


Sorry to modify your userpage in Wikipedia (several times). The template:Babel-1 is phasing out and may be removed in future (I'm not sure if it'd be removed, but currently it is a redirection).--Hello World! 14:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

air brake


We don't use Wikipedia-style redirects here. (And you were missing a space before the [[ anyhow.) On the English Wiktionary, air brake is supposed to have it's own (brief) entry. --Connel MacKenzie 22:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I see, thank you very much. I assume its entry should be something like "alternate spelling", but can you direct me to the proper page to learn about formating these kind of entries? - Trevor MacInnis 22:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we have anything beyond Entry layout explained, off hand. I'll enter it now, so you can get the idea. --Connel MacKenzie 23:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

I think the Wikipedia page you asked about is w:Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks for protecting the Javascript.

Have you considered having an equivalent of w:Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention or is Wiktionary talk:Administrators intended for such requests? --Hroðulf 10:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Usually that kind of stuff went on this page :-). Most admin-related things are discussed on the Beer parlour, or noted at WT:VIP, but I'm not opposed to the idea of making such page. — Vildricianus 12:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well this is a smaller community. Perhaps the equivalent shortcuts should point to WT:BP for now? --Connel MacKenzie 13:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Pardon the stressed out reaction

In this nebulous digital wikiWorld one can sometimes get over involved; I'm usually on my guard against such, but going into last weekend snuck up on me. I've spent literally days hour on hour revamping the initial system, and like so many things, it just got to be a bit too much to hit a new frustration. So I took a few days off, least I continue the daze! <G> In anyevent, I was just dropping in to fix a typo I'd unearthed, and wasn't supposed to be wiki-ing anything today as well until sometime this evening... instead the whole day has been on Meta and the commons, with an email to Jimbo Wales for spice, as he finally got back to me on something relating to category interlinking... the direct ancester of the templates scheme, but one more important by far, as it's also interlingual, but needs system software upgrades, which is where Jimbo enters into it. I want him to kick it around with the rest of the board and the programmers that can answer the issues I haven't yet devined... or not knowing enough, can only present with a rough sketch of what needs to happen. So apologies.

Apologies on the email if you can't find that either. I saw my copy of it somewhere during the last two days, and early this evening at the latest (I'm at 3:48 EDST, Boston, MA area), I'll track it down again and resend. I just looked and came up empty, which means nothing first pass. My email filters are pretty complex, but at the moment, I'm rushed. TTFN // FrankB 19:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Just checking in to say about the best laid plans of mice and Frank's... which is to say haven't had a chance to dig for the email, and the wife collared me for Honey-Do-this list stuff much of the evening, so I'm still trying to work my way back to Meta. Just dropping off an updated piece of documentation, so I thought I'd give you a status. I doubt now I'll get to it tonight... I hear my pillow calling pretty steadily! See what I can do tomarrow. TTFN // FrankB 04:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Article creation templates

Thanks - much easier to find these things now! bd2412 T 03:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Why did you revert my edit in bicker? Sergei 07:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Because I made a mistake. I thought I saw a different spelling. I've rolled back my mistake, to your correct version, now. Thanks for pointing it out! --Connel MacKenzie 07:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

re Thank you

So you didn't run a bot to filter out any trusting souls that had already voted for everyone then, before spamming us ;-)

Actually, that would only have removed about 5 of us, and the info you gave was useful too, so we might have felt left out if you had!

I followed the "trusting" approach myself, of reading the user pages, waiting until someone I trusted had voted for the person, and then copying them, even if I'd never heard of the person I was voting for. So it's always a relief to get some more positive info.

Well done for chasing anyway, and well done for topping the poll for the last few days -- I am obviously not the only one who values your energy in checking up on vandals! --Enginear 13:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I started out with that, only wishing to individually thank each person that supported me.  :-) I am very happy to see progress being made! --Connel MacKenzie 16:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


With you as a CheckUser, WF is never going to be able to sneak back into Wiktionary! Whether or not that is a good thing is arguable. I know you're gonna rollback this message anyway, but nevermind. -- 00:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

See now, the range-block is not in effect, mainly so that you can register your vote against me on WT:C.  :-)   Congratulations on gaining your "parole" status on WZ. --Connel MacKenzie 01:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Lol, you caught KEStock! That was impressive. WF is even noticed when (s)he tries to sneak in by feigning knowlege of the parasympathetic nervous system and phenolphthalein! Come on though, acetylcholine chloride being WF? Surely not! It disheartens WF. But still, WF finds it weird how no other promising new user has been mis-blocked as a suspected WF sock. I guess newcomers aren't as good at editting as WF. Sigh, there is no point in trying here anymore. WF'll see you around soon, but will not be around here much these days, (s)he has first "proper job" starting tomorrow, with a multinational computer firm. And in case you care, WF just got blocked on the French Wikipédia for the first time too, making a couple of silly edits after 3000 good ones (went for admin too, but that failed miserably). Keep on trucking Connel. --Wellinton 22:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Verb or Verb form

I can understand why someone replaces the heading Verb with Verb Form. The principle states that every Verb should use the en-verb template. But the problem seems that there is NO en-verb variant for verb forms, it is limited to lemmas. The same holds for the en-noun template which can't be used for a Noun in the plural (e.g. abbeys). So, there are two basic options: you extend the templates, or you change the headings (Verb form for Verb, Noun form for Noun). In the Wiktionary guidelines I can't find a list of accepted Headings and their meanings. Although there is constant discussion on these matters: is traffic light (see its Talk page) a Noun or a Noun phrase or something else? Is Sunday a Noun or a Proper noun? And so on. It would be good that these questions were discussed (and solved) in a central place (and not in some unexpected corner). That could avoid discussions with people who do edits in good faith! - Jan, 16 September 2006

Hello. I agree. The "standard" headings were discussed last year and agreed to by most (if not all?) of the contributors. Heading standards were again discussed this year. But those were pushed to WT:GP and somewhat out of the main spotlight.
As I tried to explain, my heavy-handed block was a result of my misunderstanding how the AWB bot functions. Of course I know he is not only a good faith contributor, but an excellent contributor. I expect I will have some bad Karma to work off, for that one, for a while. --Connel MacKenzie 05:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


WZ? SemperBlotto 07:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC) --Connel MacKenzie 07:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
More specifically, --Connel MacKenzie 07:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Do they know? SemperBlotto 07:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Gerard does, if that's what you mean. --Connel MacKenzie 02:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Importing from Wikipedia

Hi, I have some questions and a bit of info regarding transwikiing/importing to wikipedia, it's been suggested to me that you're a good person to discuss this with. First, the Move to Wiktionary template and categories on wikipedia have been renamed, the list of articles to be transwikied is now at Wikipedia:Category:Copy to Wiktionary. (There are about 500 articles in that category now, if you or someone else wants to get them) My questions are about the new Import procedure. As importing will now be replacing transwikiing, will the process be completed on the wikipedia side when Importing from wikipedia? The import function apparently doesn't do anything on the wikipedia side, but if the transwiki tag isn't removed from the wikipedia article, or if a notation isn't left on the wikipedia transwiki log, this will cause problems. I don't have a wiktionary account, I am Wikipedia:User:Xyzzyplugh.

I left several similar (misplaced?) questions myself on Wikipedia. Since I have automated the Special:Import function on this (the Wiktionary) side, would you (Wikipedia) like me to tag those entries with my bot, as they are imported? If so, how should they be tagged? Just replace the {{Move to Wiktionary}} template with some other template?
P.S. By 'automated' I mean that my script will pull a list from w:CAT:MtW (I guess I should update that) and import them all, as soon as I start the script. So far, I've only run it twice.
--Connel MacKenzie 02:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no tag that can be added to the wikipedia article itself after transwikiing. There is, however, the Wikipedia:Template:Transwikied_to_Wiktionary template, which can be added to the wikipedia article's talk page. However, in looking at it, I'm not sure it's accurate any longer since it provides links which won't be accurate if Import is used. What really needs to be done, whether this template is added or not, is for the original transwiki tag to be removed from the article, and for a notation to be added to the wikipedia transwiki log, at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Transwiki log/Articles moved from here/en.wiktionary. Is it possible for your bot to do this? I'm not sure how familiar with wikipedia you are, so I'll explain: If the transwiki tag (Move to Wiktionary/Copy to Wiktionary) isn't removed from the article, then it will stay in the category of articles to be moved, and no one will know it's been transwikied already. If the tag is removed, but no notation is left in the transwiki log, this is a problem for a number of reasons. The wikipedia article once transwikied should now be deleted, or expanded, rewritten, redirected, or whatever, but without the notation in a central location, the transwiki log, no one will be notified that this needs to be done. And there's a chance then that the "move to wiktionary" tag will be put back on the article again since it will still be just a dictionary definiton. Wikipedia:User:Xyzzyplugh
Thank you. That is exactly the explanation I was looking for. Adding to the Transwiki log was problematic to me, but I suppose if I just add a new section (with no section title) that will be sufficient? I've just created w:User:CopyToWiktionaryBot that I'll request approval for when I figure out the method over there. Removing the template from those articles is very straight-forward. I'll experiment with the title-less section adding in a little bit. --Connel MacKenzie 03:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
As long as the information is added to the transwiki log, that's the important thing, I don't think the section title really matters. Right now they're all just called "section break", but any title at all would be fine, someone could always change it later if they wanted differently named sections or bigger/smaller sections or whatever. Wikipedia:User:Xyzzyplugh
OK, I just added that log entry for the ones I forgot about (but did import) on 12 August 2006. The ones before that, someone else had kindly added to the log/cleaned up. I'll generate the logfile section entry as a single file with each run, then just paste the result over there.
My lingering question is about the tag removal. At what point is it ok to remove the {{Move to Wiktionary}} tag? After the log entry is made, right? --Connel MacKenzie 03:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
If you could rally your troops in support of w:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CopyToWiktionaryBot I'd appreciate it. --Connel MacKenzie 05:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Two things:

First, I've long been throwing things out of the transwikification queue, by simply removing the notice (or replacing it with {{wiktionarypar|article}}), if Wiktionary already has an article, on the grounds that (a) Wiktionary's home-grown articles are in my experience generally already better dictionary articles than anything that Wikipedia grows and (b) editors who want to improve Wiktionary can and should come and edit the existing article directly. Wiktionary is a wiki too, after all.

Second, I made the transwiki logs simple for 'bots to deal with on all projects. All that a 'bot needs to do is append a single line to the end of the page, in a standard format across all projects. The section headings are for the benefits of humans editing the logs, and thus humans add them by hand where they think that they require them. Uncle G 11:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


Any idea why the Primetime links are no longer listed on WP:LTA?

Well, based on this edit, it looks like the subpages were alllegedly converted to categories six weeks ago -- except there's no such category as promised. I left a note on the talk page asking what the hell is going on there. --Calton 13:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

parsing translations

In the bot policy in limbo thread, you mentioned

5. translations from other language Wiktionaies should be imported
6. translations from here should generate entries

I've been thinking about the possibility of doing something like that, too. But have you thought about it in detail? I'm thinking that our translations are going to be very tricky to mechanically parse, especially when there are several sections for distinct senses (as, of course, there are supposed to be). I'm wondering if there are suggestions we could make about the canonical formatting (and templatizing) of translations sections that would make mechanical parsing easier -- or if, perhaps, there are already sufficient well-estabilhed regularities that I just haven't noticed yet. —scs 15:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

When I mentioned that, it was needlessly, pointlessly inciteful. That topic is still a raw wound. When I first proposed User:TheCheatBot, I figured I'd have it generate entries for all the various inflections and combinations of inflections. To live up to its name, I figured I'd combine all my entry-generation tasks. Seemed logical at the time. But yes, I certainly did think about it in detail (it is much more complicated, than for, say, three senses of one English word. You also have to pick up the translations from other English words that my original proposal.)
The resulting flamewars were mind-boggling.
Translations, most of all, were the most downtrodden of all my proposals. Several people were insanely vocal in their opposition to my creating stubs from existing translation entries. (I.e., if a translation is listed for three separate English words, generate that definition for whatever language, with those three definition lines.) I never fully understood why their opposition was so vehement (which is precisely why they would oppose a resubmission of the same concept now, presumably.) These same valued contributors don't seem to understand that this is a wiki - and that once a stub is entered, the expansion of the entry is easier.
The translations "issue" was simply the most demoralizing aspect of Wiktionary I have encountered, to date. (Way worse, than say, the ten months of dealing with the goatse vandal, or the wheel warring with Ec/Ncik.) I do not wish to unearth the WT:BP archives on the topic, nor revive that conversation in any way.
--Connel MacKenzie 16:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, without reopening the thorny political issues, let me say that
  1. I was probably one of the ones arguing against bot-entered translations, but I've since pretty much changed my mind. But at any rate
  2. I was here musing (and asking) only about the narrow technical question of whether our existing translations are feasibly mechanically parseable at all, not about any of the politically-laden questions about then using the mechanically-parsed data to drive any entry- or translation-entering bot processes here. —scs 16:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
OK then, (re-read original question.) OK, well, "properly" formatted translation sections are broken out into the different "glosses" and those glosses were what I was going to enter, each on a separate "#" line, for generated translation entries. --Connel MacKenzie 16:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing hint needed

Hi there. I am picking your brains as a well known manipulator of data. I want to add a list of ===Derived terms=== to function. By copy/pasting from a number of sources, I have created a simple text file of about 300 terms. Each term starts on a new line. Almost every term has a space character within it. Every one ends with a space character. I want to add *[[ to the front of each term, and replace each trailing blank with ]]. Is there an easy way to do that? I have all the standard Windows software (Word, Wordpad, Notepad) SemperBlotto 21:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC) OK. I figured it out. I just need to split it into columns tomorrow. SemperBlotto 22:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Windows, eh? If you are in the mood for a small (safe) download, I recommend or Both have macro functions, making repetitive text editing much less painful. (E.g. record a macro of the keystrokes you use to edit/format one line, move cursor to next line, stop recording, then play back your recording "multiple, until end of file.") The first time you record a macro, it will take you a few minutes to figure out. (Helps to have someone on skype or irc to walk you through it.) Thereafter, you can reformat files like that in just a couple seconds. (Essentially, about as long as it takes you to edit that first line to your satisfaction.) <soapbox>*nix has many, many, many more tools for doing those sorts of manipulations (vi, emacs, sed, or shell language or programming language of your choice.) Within each of those options, of course, there are dozens of ways to do a simple repetitive manipulation like that. I shall forever wonder why Windows/MS discourages scripting of repetitive tasks...seems exactly like what computers were invented for, in the first place.</soapbox> --Connel MacKenzie 00:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I ran my offline top4^wiki routine to balance those columns. --Connel MacKenzie 01:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well done. If I had been back on IBM mainframes I could also have done it with one command! SemperBlotto 07:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Windows has little support for the scripting of repetitive tasks because the presumption is that users would rather do tasks repetitively than learn more-sophisticated techniques for automating them. (And there's unfortunately some evidence in favor of this presumption.) The automatic insistence on automating a repetitive task, the fear and loathing of performing tedious tasks by hand, the love of learning, using, and/or building new tools for ever-more-conveniently automating ever more things -- these are all hallmarks of the programmer, the engineer, and the nurd. (See also the "assumes that you are intelligent" paragraph in this screed.)
Semper, if you're inclined to explore automation like this, and if you go back far enough to have experience of IBM mainframes, how is it you've never used Unix or Linux? If you'd like to dip a big toe into the water without actually downloading and installing a distro or abandoning Windows, you should definitely give Cygwin a whirl. It's a one-click download that gives you (among many other things) a Unix shell in a Windows window. The first things I'd learn about would be cat, pipes, grep, diff, and sed. —scs 15:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I've used Unix (administered Sybase on it at Tesco (for Home Shopping)) and didn't like it. Anyway, at my age I'm not really interested in learning much more and I've had decades of programming already (Fortran, Cobol, PL/1, Assembler, various flavours of SQL, C++ etc). Enough is enough! SemperBlotto 16:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

plural of

{{plural of}} isn't wikifying the singular word anymore. Any idea why not? SemperBlotto 09:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry. Figured it out - doesn't give red links! SemperBlotto 09:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please add wikisaurus link to idiot?

Please add {{WikiSaurus-link|idiot}} to the top of the English section of idiot, which you sprotected. (I'm new. Someone added synonyms to dumbass on WP, which gave me the idea to come over here and add them.)

PS: It seems to me Wiktionary is sometimes notably slower than WP. Is that generally true, or does it vary widely? I may well be biased, in that I haven't been here long. TransUtopian 15:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Even better, I'll unprotect it, so you can edit do it.
I've noticed that the en.wiktionary page serving is usually much faster than WP. The smaller DB size is undoubtedly the reason. But the smaller user base means that we address certain types of problems slower - is that what you meant? Well, welcome to Wiktionary. Enjoy! --Connel MacKenzie 17:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Done. I meant I was getting 30 second load times here on few but notable occasions. But then again, while today WP's been pretty fast, I've often gotten 30+ second load times there too the past few weeks, so it's probably just my perception or network traffic. I'll mention it on the Pump here if it gets systemic. TransUtopian 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, indeed, today it does seem rather awful. --Connel MacKenzie 18:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Is that your own personal stats/server, one owned by Wikimedia, or are they the same thing? I found out those weird names are various Wikimedia servers around the globe, but the graph measures thousands of requests per second. How do the number of requests/sec (clients -> server?) correlate to server response time? TransUtopian 20:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
While the "language random redirects" do run on my home server, nothing else does. Mark is WMF's newest employee and I have no clue where he has physically located. I do not know where statistic are kept for "server response time" although I've heard rumors that those are collected somewhere too. meta:Server layout diagrams may be helpful too.
I have found that if a page is loading for more than 5-10 seconds, it is stuck. Pressing (esc) then ^R will then usually load the page instantly. --Connel MacKenzie 20:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and diagrams. Especially the latter are more pretty colours and shapes than something I bring my head around, but I have an inkling. :) Thanks for reminding me about Ctrl+R to reload. I'd gotten attached to Opera's mouse gestures, but the "up-down" to reload has come to work less than half the time. TransUtopian 11:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I never did "get it" with mouse gestures. The few times I did try it, it seemed very, very clever. But how one remembers just what the gestures are seemed just too problematic. Plus, I'm one of the keyboard holdout types. Whenever possible, I will use a keyboard shortcut, instead of reaching over to the mouse. Given a choice of memorizing gestures, vs. keystrokes, I'll choose keystrokes every time. --Connel MacKenzie 17:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a keyboard guy too. It started when I became too lazy to clean my mouse. :) I still love and use the keyboard much of the time, including mouse keys, but I still use the mouse for some stuff, including a few Opera mouse gestures. The one I use most often is Go up one folder on a website (up-left), partly because I don't see a keyboard shortcut for it. TransUtopian 19:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a good one. I don't use Opera enough. When I do, it is usually on my laptop; gestures don't work so great on a mouse pad.  :-( For that one, I usually just edit the location directly. Sadly, since becoming a sysop, my ALT-D key has been usurped by the [delete page] button. I haven't found a memorable key to remap that to, as they are pretty much all taken. So, to get to the location, I...have to use the mouse! Gah. --Connel MacKenzie 20:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for the welcome, especially the Beer Parlour link.

I only use a few gestures, though all except Reload work fine on the pad. What browser do you frequent? I know IE6 uses ALT-D to focus on the address bar, because a few sites don't work with my older Opera. (I could upgrade for free, but I never upgrade until compelled because little things are sometimes bloated, moved or removed. If Opera 9 has a "Go up all/to root folder" shortcut, I might upgrade. :)

A couple tricks I love:
Go back/forward (Z/X, Alt-Left/Right Arrow, Mouse: Hold right button & click left/hold left & click right). The latter methods sometimes work for cycling ahead through pages/images you haven't even visited yet, like in this West Wing recap.
Navigate through links: Shift-Up, Down, Left, or Right Arrow. If it bypasses a link, Ctrl-Up or Down. TransUtopian 14:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely forgot until I did it automatically, that Ctrl-Backspace is Opera's Go up one folder. Weird how the mind forgets but the body remembers. TransUtopian 15:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

rfv: siting lists it as a verb form. I've removed the rfv tag. RJFJR 13:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Arguments in template.

Connel, how exactly does one put arguments in a template? Specifically, I'd like to set up Template:new en plural so that I can add a tag at the end to place irregular plurals in the right category (e.g., the placement would look like {{subst:new en plural|directory|ies}} and would put the entry in Category:English irregular plurals ending in "-ies". bd2412 T 13:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice! Can you also make it default to Category:English plurals if no additional argument is made? bd2412 T 13:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks! bd2412 T 13:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

New complaint - the template now drops the following code in the article: {{#if:{{{2|}}}|[[Category:English irregular plurals ending in "-{{{2}}}"]]|[[Category:English plurals]]}} It doesn't show up, but is it necessary for it to be there for the argument to work? bd2412 T 02:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, I didn't invent this kluge. Anyhow, yes, it does need to be there. The process of saving the entry is the action that removes all traces of it. If you are done doing that group of special cases, then perhaps it should be removed from the template, so it doesn't confuse newcomers. --Connel MacKenzie 02:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If you'd like to read up on the various bits of magic in use, see meta:Magic words and meta:ParserFunctions. Just keep in mind the massive negative reaction these things have so far received, before throwing too much in, here and there. --Connel MacKenzie 02:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Don't feel bad about "forgetting" {{abstain}} -- it had never existed before. —scs 15:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


your message:

Without even commenting on WT:RFV? What? The RFV tag is for navigation, to the right part of the discussion page., and especially the OED are all known to have errors. That's one reason we have {{nosecondary}}. --Connel MacKenzie 13:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the yellow background made it hard for me to see that it was a link and I missed. RJFJR 17:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Why create an account

Started it. - TheDaveRoss 06:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's beautiful. --Connel MacKenzie 06:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Catch-22 of Banning

I know I mentioned this in my e-mail, but I really didn't see anything in your response about it.

If an IP address is banned of a unregistered user, unless someone is clever enough to use a friends computer or a proxy site it is impossible for them to appeal a ban. You need an account to appeal an IP block. But, you can't create an account while your IP is blocked. It is a catch-22 situation.

I don't know if you have any capability of fixing this, but I thought mentioning it to you would be the best way to either get it fixed or find someone who can get it fixed. --The Resistance 21:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That is why the "email this user" button should be turned on for all administrators, as it is for Connel. As you can see, it worked. - TheDaveRoss 21:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Erm, not quite, TheD.
The only viable work-around I've seen so far, is for sysops to post their e-mail address on their User: and User talk: pages. I'm setting up a gmail account now, for precisely that purpose. --Connel MacKenzie 21:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. --Connel MacKenzie 22:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


I'd appreciate it if you could try submitting (and/or resubmitting) some voting policy votes. I'm particularly interested in how easy or hard it is, to make a new nomination. I suspect that the choice of the six different buttons may be counter-intuitive. So, suggestions on how to simplify it are appreciated. Thanks in advance. --Connel MacKenzie 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't interesting to me, so I suggest you find some other beta testers.
My first-glance reaction -- but this is just me, and may not apply to anyone else -- is that it's too complicated, and therefore offputting. Moreover, it's too complicated because of the attempt at automating it in an attempt to make it "simpler".
Me, I know how to add a new section to a discussion page, and if that's all a new vote should require, then that's all I want to do. Fancy subpage schemes involving transcluded templates and extra automation -- even if the templates and automation are supposed to make things simpler -- sometimes just make me throw up my hands and say "eh, never mind".
(Sorry for the unsupportive response, but I'm just calling 'em like I see 'em...) —scs 23:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'm sure I had the same initial response, the first time I saw the sub-page method used. However, there are compelling reasons for using it for WT:VOTE. The results of the various votes have longer-lasting importance. If someone wishes to dispute an aspect of a particular vote, (perhaps to start a new one) the details of the previous vote need to be somewhere. For nomination votes, the votes need to be on both pages.
The reasons I wanted you to try one, is many-fold. I know you are interested in solidifying policy issues. That is what the page is for. I wanted you to see the help-introductions (which you can't see unless you try one.) You also expressed something about the lack of voting policy on that first vote. But your comment was slightly too abstract for me to address. etc.
Please do reconsider. I'd appreciate it if you took a look. --Connel MacKenzie 01:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


I see two milestones have been missed. Almost certainly both Spanish verb forms via bot. SemperBlotto 10:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: marking edits as patrolled

Thank you, but last I looked I wasn't a sysop ... I haven't been nominated; and it is some serious work (although the more responsible people share it the easier it is). Robert Ullmann 21:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not? Ooops. --Connel MacKenzie 22:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


I've just been informed that if a definition has the plural of template on it and no text that is wikilinked, then the argument should be wikilinked. Something about avoiding the list of pages that don't have any links on them and that template being able to handle wikilinked arguments as optional. Is this something worth putting on your 'bots to do' list? (I think Isaw you were planning on doing a plural and third form bot). RJFJR 17:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks yes, I'm having User:TheCheatBot do that, as it is the bot that created the majority of those entries (therefore it was its responsibility to fix them.) I do not know how often I'll rerun that task. The remaining entries are of sufficiently low volume that it may not be necessary. --Connel MacKenzie 20:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

votes bug

It's late so can't be bothered to work out how to fix this myself. The oppose section in Votes suggests subst:support. :-) MGSpiller 00:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)