![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi there, first of all as many people would probably said this already but thank you for creating the apportion diagram for legislatures. But, I have a question about it...well regarding apportion diagrams. How would I be able to make a diagram like this? (Note: made thumbnail for my convenience Slashme (talk))
If you can help me in anyway, that would be appreciated. DestinationAlan (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Excellent summary, @Shabidoo:. What I could add is that if you're making a diagram template, you should make it in SVG, for example by using Inkscape. That way it's easy to repurpose it.
With that said, I could probably quite easily write code to generate such diagrams and add it as an option, but I'll need advice from both of you about what the general case of this kind of diagram is, so that I can cover it properly. Looking at this example, as well as the other linked examples, I guess the elements are:
I could imagine a user interface looking like the one I have at the moment, with the following added controls for each party:
The code would then set up a rectangular space for each group of parties and calculate the size of the blocks required to fit the limiting group. Let's assume for the sake of calculation that we give a 2×12 cm space (24 cm2) each for Government and Opposition, and a 1x2 (2 cm2) cm space for cross-bench. If the Government coalition has 89 representatives, Opposition has 55 and cross-bench has 5, then Government has 89/24 = 3.7 blocks per cm2, Opposition obviously less, and cross-bench has 5/2 = 2.5 blocks per cm2. Government has the most blocks per cm2, so we calculate the block size based on them. To make a 2×12 aspect ratio group of square blocks that can take a group of 89, we need 2x×12x>89 ⇒ x>1.92 ⇒x=2, so a 4×24 space (total capacity 96) each for Government and opposition, of which the Government coalition would use 22 full columns of 4 rows, plus 1 lone square, and the opposition would use 13.75 columns, so 13 full columns plus 3 squares. The cross-benchers would have a 2×4 space, of which they would of course use 2 rows of 2 and one more to make up 5 seats. That gives the configuration of the Aussie house linked above.
The question to you both is then: does this cover a general enough case that it would be used in more than a few articles? --Slashme (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, so there was an edit conflict when I completed my reply. I'd still like to hear whether it's worth coding this diagram type, and what the minimum feature set would be to make it applicable to a reasonably wide set of legislature types. --Slashme (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
There are going to be future elections ahead, most notably the UK parliamentary one in 2015. So I believe it is worth it and I believe it will be used in other pages besides the UK one and the Australian House of Representatives. I planned to photoshop/gimp one for the state ones but my skills at that is inept. Anyway, The minimum feature set is obviously the Government and Opposition Block with an option for Crossbench and Speaker as you have previously mentioned. DestinationAlan (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... I'd want to see some kind of consensus on diagrams before spending much time coding this, so let me know how that develops. @DestinationAlan: I can show you how to do those modifications really easily in Inkscape. Much easier than Gimp/PS for this kind of thing, and SVG is good for diagrams. --Slashme (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
From what I recalled, the state legislatures don't have diagrams besides Queensland and the ACT which are both unicameral I am all for what you guys are suggesting, im clueless on coding and apologies Shabidoo my politics skill is also a progress. As for showing me, I appreciate it Slashme, just tell me when you can show how. DestinationAlan (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
New South Wales Council New South Wales Assembly
Victoria Council Victoria Assembly
South Australia Council South Australia Assembly
Tazmania Council Tazmania Assembly
Western Australia Council Western Australia Assembly
Australian Capital Territory Assembly
As you can see there are always several formatting issues and some "executive decisions" to be made in each diagram. I used the party composition info for each wikipage and then made the diagrams (I'll use inkscape next time I make the diagrams). What I'd suggest is that first we verify the party standings for each legislature and make any corrections. Then I'd suggest we add these diagrams to each wikipage and then see how the editors react. There may or may not be resistance. If there is acceptance then perhaps slashme you'd consider making a tool (though to be honest I quite enjoy making these). --Shabidoo | Talk 03:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@Shabidoo and DestinationAlan: Good plan. Tonight I'm going to see J.B.O. live for the first time, but tomorrow I'll record a video which will show how to:
Then, after a few uploads and gathering feedback, if you want me to code this kind of diagram in the parliament tool, I'll be happy to do it as and when I get a bit of time.
--Slashme (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Awesome @Slashme:, I hope you enjoyed your time seeing J.B.O.. I cannot thank you enough for doing this.
Also, @Shabidoo:, I was doing some rummaging through some pages and found the diagrams they used for the Canadian Parliament (H.O.C and Senate) and was interested to know your thoughts on this type?
Commons:File:41st_Can_House.svg
Well this is awkward I forgot to sign in. DestinationAlan (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean diagrams that could be applied to a variety of legislatures? Also, thank you for the video. I didn't expect it to come up so quick! How would I make it square blocks and adjust them? DestinationAlan (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys, sorry for not responding in awhile. I've been busy ugh! Anyway I was editing political pages when I noticed this type of diagram...Tell me what you think? DestinationAlan (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Interesting diagram type, and I agree that it's quite attractive. I think it could be difficult to create a generic design that would fit a wide range of legislatures, because of the issues that you mentioned. Of course, if you do get wide support for this type of diagram for Westminster-style legislatures, I'd give it a bash, but it would be much easier to program a script to generate the kind that we were discussing earlier, with a block above and below, and a block for the cross-benchers. --Slashme (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Your timing is a bit unfortunate: I'm going back to work on Monday, and right now I'm working on a Blender 3D project, so you missed my prime coding time, namely while I was on leave. I'd suggest you make a few diagrams with the Inkscape template and see how they are received, and then let me know. If there is a big demand for more diagrams, I can certainly code it as a web tool. --Slashme (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I mostly play face to face though, and I've been a bit lazy with go lately. I'm around 4k. You? --Slashme (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi you drew a really nice image of the catalytic cycle for cytochrome P450. There is a mistake in the cycle that would be helpful to correct. There is no Fe(V) intermediate, but instead an Fe(IV) with a radical heme ligand (same number of oxidizing equivalents). I dont know how you want to represent this situation. You can see my representation in the article where I depict the rebound mechanism (a sequence of intimate steps). One other suggestion might be to increase the font size of the active site, both for ease of visualization and to match fonts for reagents and intermediates. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
When I go to your Parliament diagram tool I get the message: "The URI you have requested, /parliamentdiagram/parliamentinputform.html, is not currently serviced." Is it broken or down or something? JackWilfred (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Same here, it seems to be broken. Das Beta (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International Space Station. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your message on my talk page, I really appreciate that! I am still a newbie so it's great to be made feel welcome by messages such as yours. :-) EvM-Susana (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lloviu virus. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syngenta. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey man!
Sorry I was AWOL for the past week, I had work and school to deal with. It is exam crunch time now so its hectic to say the least...
But boring guff aside, I will be sure to test out the site and some of the features! DrRandomFactor (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I will also be posting this to GitHub so other users can see this.
Now let me start off by saying the Parliament Designing tool is flipping fun to play around with. That being said it is not perfect, as nothing is. So I do have a few complaints and suggestions that can be done.
1. Make the layout nicer.
Now I know little about web design and I know CSS is a complete pain in the rear-end to deal with. I know that. But the sites does look a little plain and it would not hurt to have a nicer looking layout, nothing fancy to make the site more professional looking and more streamlined.
2. Make Party boxes more streamlined
I had a bit of an issue with the different boxes for filling out the party since it is all jumbled together and a bit confusing without the numbers on the sides for the specific party. So I propose putting boxes around each party segment as you open it up. Here is a link to a photo on Imgur.com showing what I am talking about. http://imgur.com/hmD68AM
3. Add Westminister style layouts, but 2 different types.
Although many governments have Westminister style party layouts, they don't all follow the British style.
I've noticed they either follow the British style layout, like what Canada does; https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/41st_Can_House.svg/500px-41st_Can_House.svg.png
...or they follow a 'u' shaped pattern, like that the New Zealand Parliament does https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/NZ_Parliament_seats%2C_2011.svg
4. Add a box devoted to the Speaker
Many legislatures have speakers and it would be nice to be able to include one. Refer to the New Zealand Parliament to see the Speaker and to get a sense of what it looks like.
5. Make the Westminister-style layout even and make it streamlined.
I've noticed in several legislatures, if they are dominated by a certain party, the opposition partlies look uneven and makes the legislature look like it is lopsided. The New South Wales legislature is a good example of this; https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/New_South_Wales_Legislative_Assembly_2014.png
Thank you for taking time to read my concerns! Now let me be a typical Canadian and apologize for being harsh with the criticisms and for wasting your time with this! :) I love life sometimes!
DrRandomFactor (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
That leaves Canadian provinces, and the parliaments of several dozen commonwealth countries. I don't know if it is worth the work...but of course if you think I'm exagerating the difficulty and you think it's worth developing a tool for Canadian provinces and several dozen commonwealth countries (Malta, Sri Lanka) then go for it.
One thing that would be cool is if you could tweak the parliament tool to create another diagram tool just for United States diagrams. I'd suggest having four boxes two of which are mandatory (0000FF for Democrats and FF0000 for Republicans) and then a check box with 6B6B6B for vacant and C9C9C9 for independent when that is the case. Seats become vacant often and it would be nice to be able to rip these kinds of diagrams out easily with a formulaic tool. The order of the diagram as rendered from left to right might be best as: (independent), democrat, republican and (vacant). That is how I've made them at least.
Perhaps you can also leave a message when the diagram is made saying (change figures to create a new diagram). Also a message linking the original tool for use in those very rare case (now 2 out of 101 legislatures) with a third party. Also would it be easy to put a download button or link next to the diagrams once created?
Would that be fairly easy to set up? I think you'd have more American users willing to give the tool a try if you had it. What do you think? Shabidoo | Talk 01:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Shabidoo and DrRandomFactor: I've prettied up the interface somewhat and added a US tool. Please give it a test-drive and let me know what you think! --Slashme (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, the Parliamentary Diagram tool seems not to be working again, it just goes to a blank screen. JackWilfred (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Foie gras. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello once again!
Let me apologize for my absence. I am in my second year of college and professor treat the workload like condoms at a prom, if you catch my drift.
Joking aside, I have played with the new Parliament Layout Designer and I am seriously impressed with the updates done to the site. The layout is clean and easy to follow, and the boxes are better spaced apart, for ease of reading.
The part of making US legislatures is a very cool feature, and is sure to get American interest in this site up. The parties and the independent/vacant colours are a really cool feature to have!
I am aware of the potential difficulties of making a Westminister-style layout generator, so I will not make any more comments on that matter. Wether it gets made or not is up to you. Its a non issue.
All in all, very good job my friend.
Cheers
-Dr. Random Factor, Ph.D, MD
DrRandomFactor (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I want to say thank you because I just used your tool to generate arch-shaped parliament diagrams. Thanks very much
Emad al-amoudi (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing this page. Great point. It has been updated to reflect the global significance of the project. Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libscore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Executionary (talk • contribs) 22:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for the parliamentdiagram tool! Awesome! Atlasowa (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello once again Slashme!
I had a chance to look at the new Westminster Layout for the Parliament maker and I have to say that I am seriously impressed once again. Very easy to understand layout and very fun to play around with altogether!
Only complaint/suggestion I can think of is a way to establish the number of rows of seats. For example, if I wanted my party to have 50 seats and I wanted it split into 4 rows, it would generate a seating layout of 14,12,12,12 in each row (the row with the most seats being on the top for ascetic reasons)
Also, one thing that is a bit confusing is how if I place a party on the right side, it goes to the top of the diagram. In traditional WestMinister layouts, the party on the right side if the party in power, and the party on the left is the opposition(s). Just a bit of a nitpick but the layouts should be switch to right being on the bottom for the maker.
All in all, very well designed and very fun to play with. Obviously once this is done it should be linked up to the main parliament generator page as well.
Also, the Canadian province of Alberta has an election within a few days. Can I call dibs on generating the new seating layout?
- Dr. Random Factor, Ph.D, MD DrRandomFactor (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello once again
Having explained the layout the way you did made sense to me. I was asking if I could have made the layout of the seats longer or shorter so the sizes would be flexible. But it is now an non issue that you explained it the way you did. Good job on that front!
The issue of wether the left and right is viewed from the speakers seat - from my analysis of politics and layouts of parliaments, it seems that the governing party is always seated to the right hand side to the speaker (from his/her perspective). The opposition party always site to the left hand side to the speaker seat. That is just how I see it as being. Obviously it is good to get more consensus from the others on here to see if this is agreed upon or not.
Dr. Random Factor, Ph.D, MD
DrRandomFactor (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi all,
Here is your invitation to alpha-test my new Westminster-style parliament diagram generator! It divides the diagram up into a left wing, a right wing, a cross-bench section and a Speaker / Leader section. You add the parties as usual, but now you also have to select where in the layout they appear.
Because we have been discussing it a bit lately, I have added two controls to modify the appearance of the spots:
Once we have a consensus on which settings look nice, I'll hard-code these two settings into the final script, so that we have a consistent look across the site.
You'll notice that I made the size of the spots in the "speaker" section independent of the scale of the rest of the diagram. If I didn't do this, it would lead to significant weirdnesses.
Please make some diagrams with varying numbers of parties and delegates, and let me know what you think of the layout and other style choices. --Slashme (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Calling @Shabidoo, Hshook, Yug, DrRandomFactor, Emad al-amoudi, Atlasowa, and Mach1988: @Philosopher, Goweegie2, Delta1989, Mikeyandreality, Nickjbor, Completefailure, and DestinationAlan: @JackWilfred, Das Beta, Habbit, Pete'sport, Cipika, and Un.autre.monde:
User:Slashme This is very cool! Thank you so much! Mikeyandreality (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, do you have options to modify the layout itself, as each place is slightly different? Nickjbor (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Very useful tool, I'll consider using it next time. Thanks so much my friend :) --Emad_al-amoudi (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Also...consider avoiding placing seats from two different parties in the same column if at all possible. Shabidoo | Talk 12:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi all,
I won't be able to do anything today or tomorrow, but my next improvements will be:
I'm going to add these as open issues on GitHub now, but also feel free to add new ones at [1] --Slashme (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of the design decision to make the Speaker's Corner always take up the same space in the diagram, and not have the same "seat size" as the rest of the diagram? Vote below!
Slashme, first and foremost, allow me to extend to you my eternal gratitude for you creating your diagramming tool. It is an invaluable asset to me in a project I am currently working on to be able to visualize different legislative layouts.
I am wondering what the algorithm is without it being in Python code so that I can then translate it into VBA?
PTPLauthor (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Reply sent via "email this user" led to Google Hangouts™ discussion which seemed helpful. --Slashme (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Slashme!
I am honoured to be chosen to test out your new tool! Here's the feedback from my experience of it.
Firstly, my suggestion for the shape is Corner Radius: 0, Spot Spacing: 0.1. I think the rounded boxes or circles look messy at small size, and having circles in the Arch diagrams and squares in the Westminster diagrams seems like a good idea to me.
Secondly, there are a couple of flaws in your tool. I've taken the current House of Commons diagram (Exhibit B) as an example of what I'm seeing as a target. The main issue is that I can't choose how many rows the seats go back and it fills from the centre. In Exhibit B it's locked to 10 rows and fills from the left, which is what would be best. I want to be able to choose how many rows there are on both sides and have it work from there.
Another issue I've found but didn't put on the diagram is when I have 1 Speaker the block for it is 2x2 normal blocks, I'd prefer it if it were 1x1 and also I could choose how many rows the crossbench has, so I could have one row of Speakers like in Exhibit B.
Thank you very much for showing me this. JackWilfred (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, thank you very much for the feedback and advice, Shabidoo and JackWilfred. I'll code the next version(s) over the weekend.
Shabidoo, I'll check out your diagrams again and see what I can do to incorporate the ideas. Jack, would you say that the diagram that you linked (Exhibit B) is ideal, or could it be further improved in your opinion? What features would you like to see apart from being able to set the number of rows? If there is anything that you'd like to see, maybe you could draw mockups (even pen on paper, photographed with a cellphone is fine!). --Slashme (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brown rice. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Slashme!
This does seem to be a bit of a controversy, but when it does come to a controversey, but in my opinion, there are two approaches to making a Westmnister style layout
1. Make it a streamlined, Britihs style layout
(This is used by several countries across the globe, and is the best way to show them off. The best thing to do would be to code it to make the sides even so if one party is dominant in the diagram, it looks even all together. Basicaly, both sides should have an equal (or close enough if it is off numbered) rows of seats.)
2. Make it both British "two sided" layout and the Australian/NewZealand "U" shaped layout.
If you do go ahead with making a Westminister layout, these seem to be your best options from my eyes. However, this is entirely up to you, obviously. Either way, I will enjoy playing around with it.
Thank you fortaking time to consider this, and I would be more than happy to discuss any other issues with you on here as well!
Dr. Random Factor, Ph.D, MD
DrRandomFactor (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for these mockups! I like them quite a lot. I think, to make things as generic as possible, I'm going to code the following, as a start, and send it out for comment:
There is then the question: circles or squares? I like circles, myself, because they keep the seats from merging into one blob. I might at first present three options:
but for a consistent look, I'll then pick one based on feedback from you and the other users. --Slashme (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys. Someone has replaced the Canadian westminster diagrams with the crossbench one. This doesn't make sense because no parliament in Canada has a crossbench or uses the term nor are diagrams ever rendered so in Canada. I've made some diagrams for the parliament and the senate. Slashme and everyone: could you let me know what you think about the diagrams? @DrRandomFactor:, would you mind rendering these two drigrams I've loaded on my google drive in the same way you've made the provincial diagrams? I'd really appreciate it. Shabidoo | Talk 17:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Canada has official seating plans http://www.parl.gc.ca/ParlBusiness/House/SeatingPlan/SeatingPlan.pdf And as such these "westminster diagrams" are totally inappropriate for use in Canada. Nickjbor (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Shabidoo, JackWilfred, Emad_al-amoudi, DrRandomFactor, Nickjbor, Mikeyandreality, Hshook, Das_Beta and Elekhh,
I've tried to implement the suggestions that I got for improvement of the Westminster diagram generator. Please test it and let me know if I've covered everything. Again, the best way to record that something isn't working properly is to log a bug at GitHub, but it's a good idea to mention it here as well, so that the other users are able to comment.
Thanks for the support and suggestions so far! --Slashme (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
As for the fact that the diagram has so many rows, I have had another look, and the tool was making rather stubby diagrams, so I've now tweaked the script a bit to make it give longer, more slender diagrams by default. Try a few and let me know. I've also replaced the sample diagram on this page with one using the same inputs, but with the new default settings. I think it's now noticeably less ugly.
I am actually now completely convinced that it's best to have both sides of the house equally thick (i.e. same number of rows), precisely because its easier to compare party size this way. If you look at the diagram above, you can easily see that the conservatives have one more seat than the communists, and that together, the conservatives, business, and greens have six less seats than the communists and the workers put together. Compare this with the "exhibit A" that Jack Wilfred put up, above. It's really hard to tell whether the blue block is bigger or smaller than the red block in that diagram. For the same reason, I'm reluctant to code a setting which keeps the diagram from having two parties in one column: this way, if one side of the house has five parties, and the other side only has one (or also has five, but happens to have them all in multiples of the number of rows used), the one will have more gaps, and will take up more room horizontally, making it really hard to judge which coalition is bigger than another.
If I'm misunderstanding some of your points, please try explaining again! --Slashme (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully, this is not a project I'm interested in continuing to follow. Nickjbor (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is...it looks like a bar chart only sideways. And in many cases, it is absolutely not a good idea to have equal thickness. The Canadian provinces are prime examples where the majorities are overwealming. Perhaps with notably large chambers keeping thickness is important, but I know it's possible to maintain both vertical and horizontal symmetry in these cases though it can take quite some adjustments to render it. For example in B.C. after discussing this with Hshook, we compromised on this image:
which maintains both kinds of symmetry. In the end...it was an improvement. For example, recently I did the PEI diagram which was easy to make (one row vs. two rows). As I said before, having non-horizontal symmetry is like having a semi-circle chart but only 70% filled (sort of like this:
For someone who has always been used to seeing diagrams which are symmetrical horizontally and vertically (when possible), a bar chart style diagram kind of looks like the one above. So it's one thing to be convinced it makes sense with a large house, but so many provincial and state houses (and even national houses such as in Malta are so small and the proportions so out of whack, that having equal thickness will render uninteligible diagrams. Just look at Saskatchewan. Shabidoo | Talk 21:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The one on the right is pretty akward and doesn't resemble a westminster house at all. It's mostly the case for the far majority of non-cross bench houses.
Take a look at Nova Scotia:
The one on the left clearly divides the parties into blocks and broadly resembles a westminster house. The rendered one appears as a blob on the top, it's difficult to compare the minority parties together because they are rendered over several colums each only a few seats in the first and last column. It's not so easy to compare the separate parties when they are strewn throughout the columns.
Shabidoo | Talk 22:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I will add an option to the interface to allow the user to decide whether the two wings should be the same width, or whether they should be the same length: that is not particularly hard, and should be there in a day or two, depending on whether there is a blade night tonight. I have a long train journey tomorrow, so you'll have this option on Wednesday at the latest.
As for not allowing parties to share the same column, I'm thinking about how to implement that. My first idea for an algorithm is:
So, in summary, it can be done, and it's also something I can offer as an option. Maybe I'll code this on the train as well. --Slashme (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you doubled up on "vertical symmetry" by accident there. But in any case, I think a diagram with a cross-bench but with different widths of the two wings would look more lopsided, but the best option probably is to allow the user to make that call. --Slashme (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I've added the options, but the code is still a bit buggy: the parties overlap in some cases when "use full width" is selected, even though the "Let parties share columns" checkbox is not ticked. I'm sure I'll get that fixed soon, but in the meantime you can try it out and see what is good and what is bad. I haven't yet implemented party separation in the cross-bench: would that be a useful option? --Slashme (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Aviation lists. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Slashme, You are now confirmed! Welcome!
Romaine (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Shabidoo, JackWilfred, Emad_al-amoudi, DrRandomFactor, Mikeyandreality, Hshook, Das_Beta and Elekhh,
I have now added the option to choose whether the diagram should be formatted to fill the width of both wings, and whether any given column should contain more than one party or not. These options can be selected independently, so for example, you have have a diagram where only one wing fills the entire width, and the other wing is the same thickness (height), and this diagram can have the parties packed tightly together, or spaced out so that no column has two colours of spots. On the other hand, you can have a diagram where both wings fill the entire width, but don't necessarily have the same height, and this diagram can also be drawn with or without parties sharing columns.
After 2 or three rounds of debugging, I think the system now fulfils my interpretation of the requests that I've gotten so far, but as usual, there might still be requirements that I didn't quite understand, or refinements that you will require after trying the tool out a few times, so please keep testing and let me know how it works for you. --Slashme (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I have already noticed a few subtle issues which could be improved. All of the following are quite easy to fix in Inkscape, so not top urgent, but I can already see how to fix them in the code, so I'll fix them when I get a chance.
--Slashme (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi sorry I've been busy but feel free to continue tagging me in these, I'm interested.
The diagram generator as it stands is fantastic. I'm not sure if there's anything I can think of adding. I'll try it out and if anything pops up I'll say. Das Beta (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Slashme, I was making a diagram in the Westminster program (way quicker than going through Illustrator!) and I noticed two small things that could be of use; a 'remove party' button, and a way to reorder the parties in case you need a different order. Thanks so much, this is such a cool thing :) – Hshook (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Acupuncture. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi David!
We want to add contact details for the corresponding author in "Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Medical gallery of David Richfield 2014". Would you like to have your email added on that page? Alternatively, we can use the "Email this user" function for your username if you have this enabled at the bottom of your preferences, so that you don't need to have the actual email stated online.
All the best,
Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey! Am I the only one having trouble getting onto the new site for the diagram? It just keeps loading... Un.autre.monde (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. Un.autre.monde (talk)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Shabidoo, JackWilfred, Emad_al-amoudi, DrRandomFactor, Mikeyandreality, Hshook, Das_Beta, Un.autre.monde and Elekhh,
I've added a "delete this party" button to the Westminster-style generator's interface. I intend to add it to the others as well: please test and let me know whether it works for you. I have so far only tested it on Firefox, so it might not! --Slashme (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I'll implement it on the other interfaces in the coming days. --Slashme (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It works, and is a good idea. The only improvement I could think of is maybe making the button a little smaller perhaps? But that's just a minor thing. Das Beta (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey slashme, do you have more than one tool online at the moment. I have tested out the tool and it works perfectly for the Quebec legislature (there is an update to be made), but it doesn't have the option to add a speaker seat nor is it rendered that way. Did you remove that option or am I unaware of a new websitepage with the updated tool? This is the one I've used Shabidoo | Talk 12:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a click box option "The speaker(s) belongs to the largest party" with a text box with the number of speakers? I don't know if that would be a good idea or not. Shabidoo | Talk 03:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I've just implemented that feature. Please take a look and let me know if it works for you. --Slashme (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Microsoft Surface. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Plant-based diet. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:College of Technology, Pantnagar. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Operation Onymous. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You wrote "Brown University has used Jerimoth Hill as an astronomy observatory location for decades, because the university has easy access to this land-locked parcel without light pollution from Providence." There are now a lot of clauses or details in the "because". Did they use it because it has no light pollution, or because they get exclusive access, or because it is land-locked? The previous wording "Brown University has used Jerimoth Hill, as an astronomy observatory location for decades, and they utilize their ease of access to this land-locked parcel to view the heavens without light pollution from Providence, R.I." was clearer that they use it because they can, and because it's land-locked, and as a result they get a site with less light pollution. DMacks (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Phineas Gage. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I spotted your username listed in Category:Current Wikipedia birthdays, and decided to send you a "Gelukkige Verjaardag" (maar mijn gebruiking van het Nederlands is zeer slecht geworden) message. I'm not 100% sure it's actually the right day for this, as at least some of the other users who are listed there have different WikiBirthdays based on userboxes on their user pages, and my own name doesn't show up even though my "user since" userbox is showing today as my anniversary. But I figured a late or early message is better than none. Happy editing! —GrammarFascist contribstalk 01:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I am feeling really down about Wikipedia these days. You left a note on my talk page earlier this year, saying I could drop you a line if Wikipedia was getting too hostile. Right now some people seem really hostile towards me. Please take a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Honey_bucket#Conflict_of_interest
Could you give me some moral support please? This is the kind of thing that could stop one from wanting to be a Wikipedian. :-( EvMsmile (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Velaga Venkatappaiah. AfD Discussion Thanks. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 08:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of custom Android firmware. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Erotic is a word used in many instances, so I make it to a separate page for ease to search information about anything related to Erotic (don't you think so?)Sarrena (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Technical Barnstar |
I congratulate you for your parliament diagram work. Iver003 (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC) |
(Iver003 (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)) When will you make a new parliamentary diagram ( Parliament of Canada ) ?
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thanks for the contributions to WP:RFD about Iloc. It's not a biggie, but usually one doesn't close discussions one has had involvement in. There's no hard and fast rule about this (regulars tend to be quite informal and not very WP:BURO over at RfD) and your closure for this is no big deal (else someone would just have reverted it, just like any other page....) I think the idea is just to give a chance to others before closing; I generally just leave a bullet saying "Procedural close, please, as converted to DAB page" or something like that. It's considered a courtesy to put ((nac))
on the closure if you're not an admin (and I'm not).
I hope you enjoy contributing to RfD, I kinda like it as a springboard, as a wide variety of things coming by and one can jump on or off in all kinds of different directions to improve (or create) articles. Si Trew (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:CobraNet. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016! |
Hello Slashme, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages. |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monkey Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ExxonMobil. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marco Rubio. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Avoiding dangerous climate change. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1 metre. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting about R2-45, I had not been aware that there was still any concern that the Scientology policy was in any way being considered to be a "joke" or otherwise not a legitimate policy of Scientology. I had thought that the issue had been settled literally since 1994 when the practice was fully vetted in the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup.
I got involved in the human rights effort to stop Scientology's criminal activities being committed on the Internet in 1995, and R2-45 factored extensively in the research which human rights activists involved themselves in at the time. So I wa a bit surprised that there are still editors who question whether it was a "joke" or not. Interesting. Damotclese (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Exponential function. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. As I climb the parliament diagram to Wikimedia Commons in a correct format (in .svg- not let me)? JPOK (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of approximation. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 22:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jean Lapierre. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
DRN has been opened concerning R2-45 naming you as a contesting editor. Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 22:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
See [3] Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 23:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
You are in violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Purpose_of_Wikipedia and a number of other points in that decision by your editing of R2-45 and failure to collaborate. The terms of that decision will be invoked if you continue in your present course of action. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 16:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:YouTube. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alfred North Whitehead. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello Slashme thank you for showing me tools for references for may job with students on [vikidia.org]--Mattruffoni (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wondering if it'd be much trouble for you make the angle of the arch adjustable (up to circle?) and to make the pictures produced more high-res, for your legislature makeup diagram generator. Thanks. AllenY99 (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I didn't return after lunch to keep working on the oauth upload with you. If you want to collaborate some more please email me and let me know when's convenient! EEggleston (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Scientology R2-45: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 06:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emmy Noether. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Slashme! I made the page on Mauro Pipani because he is considered in Italy a great living artist. Among the other he is doing an exhibition in Rome (until 10 July) with Italian and foreign artists such as Warhol , Carlo Carrà , Pistoletto , Mimmo Palladino etc .. http://www.exibart.com/profilo/eventiV2.asp?idelemento=161119
Yesterday I have found this article in English about his art (on page 80). It is an important art magazine. https://www.joomag.com/magazine/startup-1/0063593001463331380?short
His page on Wikipedia Italy was removed because for Wikipedia Italy if an artist doesn’t take part in at least two biennials of Venice is not an artist, regardless of what it is in real life.
L'uomodisabbia (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)l'uomodisabbia (talk)
thanks! --L'uomodisabbia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I reverted your edit to Periphery III: Select Difficulty, as the article has two references, and the album is scheduled to be released in less than one week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I based the bondage hood stub on references. Ranze (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I totally understand th point off redirect page, but I'm also trying to get PB Radio deleted as it never should have been there in the first place and has been defunct for about 5 years.
Thank you
MrNewbold (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Text moved to the article talk page. --Slashme (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Constant of integration. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks David (aka Slashme) for the edit on iCUBE, much appreciated. Cheers mate! Fil Brit (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC) |
Hi - I didn't create the article Charles Edwin Spooner, other than as a redirect in 2008. It looks like Hzh should get the credit for the article. Optimist on the run (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. There are probably many more articles on colonial history, railway and architecture that need to be written, I'm just trying to fill a few gaps. Thank you also for the copy editing. Hzh (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
From the user KaiStr: I disagree with the merge of the ETS page and with Slashme devaluation of this page. The ETS page should exist independently. This ETS theory existed since the 1960s, within a rather strong evolutionary school (Russians evolutionary biologists), and the author of the ETS is a completely different person (Geodakyan). Trofimova only adopted this ETS theory to psychology but she wasn't the author of the original theory. The page was encyclopedic as it had definitions and illustrations - borrowed from Trofimova for simplicity. Please don't bring your prejudice and ignorance to wikipedia, let public see all opinions and theories offered within different (an not just yours) schools. KaiStr (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Slashme: I am sorry if you feel insulted but a deletion of the wiki-page about a theory that existed for at least 50 years and was well-received in at least a part of scientific community looked like ignorance. Re-direction and merges eliminated any mentioning of the work of Geodakian. I never met this gentleman, and have no tights to him, but we should stay fair and don't show preferences for one theory over another. When you write "you feel strong about the topic" - I do, but about the topic and fairness. There is no mentioning of the ETS theory within the Sexual Reproduction page, even though he was one of the earliest authors who pointed to the role of the shapes of distributions and susceptibility to diseases as differences between sexes. He is a very emotional and often extreme writer, but similarly to Freud, when we filter out his extreme expressions, there is still a useful message for the public, and this message is supported by findings in the studies of male variability, mortality rates and twins. It makes sense to keep both pages and just have links between them. You are right - let's continue in a civil manner.KaiStr (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Slashme, thanks for your advice, but I'm already fairly clear on how WP:SPEEDY, WP:AFD and WP:PROD work. I reason I use it so much so is in the slim hope that I can game the system, in manner which will enable me to remove some cack from Wikipedia, from those articles which have zero value, and are unlikely to be visited by anybody, in the quickest manner possible. As the English WP increases in size, and as the number of active editors continue to decline, ever more terrible articles continue to accumulates, even the stuff that is considered cruft, which also have little value, accumulates. The sad fact, since the guidelines have come in, and which really peeves me off, is the more and more group (In the loosest decoupled sense) designed articles that are written, which use informal networks of people and entities, e.g. old boy network here in the UK, for instance, that enable these articles to come in, fully formed and fully sourced, but not notable. There seems to be no way to remove them. Ultimately it is up to the editor to determine what tag to apply. Taking Helen Santos as an example, it clear it is not deserving of an article, she was only in 4.5% of the episodes and it should have been speedied. There is no worthy knowledge in it!!! In 20 years time, it will completely forgotten about. User:Scope creep 18:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
But, Scope creep. you may not use deletion criteria when they do not apply with the hope that you can "game the system" by removing what you personally consider "cack", is uncooperative behavior that would make more work for everybody else involved in the process, but in correcting the errors, and in giving proper advice and reassurance to the confused new editors. Though the number of active editors is no longer declining, we need to continue to maintain and increase it to permit the survival of the encyclopedia: It's been found, as you would expect, that the great majority of people who join as good faith editors whose first article is rejected, never return; even if they only get a notice& the article is not deleted, they still never return. And try not to ovedo the crusade, because in the last few years, several people have been banned from NPP and from deletion process for their reckless use of deletion tagging; I think one or two have even been banned from the encyclopedia. (It's not biased: not all of these were for excessive tagging, there was at least one where the person was recklessly removing clearly valid speedies). The people who do follow the rules are, understandably, getting impatient.
My own view is that the problem is not articles of relatively trivial importance from fans and the like -- as NOTPAPER explains, they do not clutter up the encyclopedia in a way that makes it harder to use. The real problem is that in many fields such articles are likely to be promotional. Variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. The best way you can help is to focus on these, and always add G11 as a reason when it applies, to help the contributor understand. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello sir,
My name is Asutosh Sahoo. I added Carlos Slim height and weight in Wikipedia because it was not mentioned in Wikipedia. From many photos and videos of Carlos Slim with former US president Bill Clinton, and Carlos slim with Bill Gates,you can find, Carlos Slim is slightly shorter than Bill Clinton and slightly taller than Bill Gates. Bill Clinton height is 1.88 m or 6 ft 2 inch and Bill Gates Height is 1.78m or 5ft 10 inch and sir, height has nothing to do being athletic.
Again, you can find in Internet that, Carlos slim weight is close to 240 pound. To justify that the information is truth, I can say you that, for a 6ft person, normal weight should be within 83 kg or 210 pounds and you can find from many of his photos and videos that, Carlos slim looks over weight. I respect you but Sir before removing any data from Wikipedia, try to research on the data that I have provided. I am staying at Geneva, Switzerland and once I saw Carlos Slim at Geneva when Carlos slim was been to Geneva for attending Broadband Commission conference and Sir,My height is 6 ft. Carlos slim height was same as my height.
Best Regards,
Asutosh Sahoo Asutosh Sahoo (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Sir,
I am a MBA student at a reputed institution of Switzerland and I make research on business man. I am a big fan of Carlos Slim. I have tons of photos and hundreds of videos of Carlos Slim. I can't share any information about any celebrity at Wikipedia if I am not 100% sure. I thought that, something was missing in Wikipedia and I can add it.You can make research on the information that I have provided and if the information are reliable, you can add in Wikipedia Best Regards,
Asutosh Sahoo Asutosh Sahoo (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The actress Julia Adler Foshko,daughter of Jacob Pavlovich Adler,younger sister of Jay Adler and older sister of Stella Adler and Luther Adler,is the subject of the only "What links here" references to "Julia Adler" and is NOT the same person as Julia Rebekka Adler. NO useful purpose is served by having Julia's article be a redirect to Julia Rebekka's article. If you want to create a disambiguation page or add references that's another matter.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi David. We worked together years ago to create the Feingold Diet page. I haven't been active on Wikipedi for a few years but now that I am retired I thought I would come back to update these pages. Most of what I had written was removed because now they don't want research but only reviews of research; I can understand that. However, when I tried to fix the sentence on the Feingold biography page, Alexbrn removed it. The sentence (under the Feingold Diet heading) currently says:
"Although the diet was popular, scientific research found no good evidence that it was effective.[5]"
The footnote is for the Kavale & Forness review in 1983. As I'm sure you are aware, 4 decades of research have been done since then and a new review would be appropriate. However, the new reviews mostly conclude that the diet IS effective. Alexbrn removed my correction to the sentence. He characterized the newer reviews as from "fringe publications" since anybody who believes that the diet can work is supporting a "fringe position" (Clinical Pediatrics? American Acad of Pediatrics?) and said the Feingold Association should be "shunned" and etc. He even removed the link to the Feingold Association and to the archive of Dr. Feingold's scientific publications. He said that the NPOV tutorial I quoted was an "obscure essay" ... what can I do now? Am I stuck with this prejudiced person as editor? Shulae (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks David (aka Slashme) for the review/edit on Ashbel Welch, much appreciated. Cheers! Risk Engineer (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Orders of magnitude (acceleration). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Allow me to suggest you to read " manmer2.blogspot.com/2015/06/middayexpress-withdrawal-ban.html " in order to understand who is user:AcidSnow and the problems he has created around the voice "Italian Mogadishu" (he has pinged user Vituzzu in order to erase this voice!). He is an "underground" supporter of ISIS/Al-Shabaab inside our en.wikipedia, and is linked to a banned user called Middayexpress and others. He is also connected with Vituzzu: if you want information on this second "crazy" person, please go to " manmer2.blogspot.com/2016/02/vito-criccaroli-rats.html "....sincerely, BD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.33.53.174 (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diesel engine. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Technical Barnstar |
Thank you for your political diagrams generator it helps alot TheHistoryKnower (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethereum. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi David,
How are you? It's been almost 3 months since our last communication, and I wonder how things are going, in particular, with your parliament diagram tool.
As life returned to the "real world" after Wikimania, I've yet to implement an SVG text translation tool, but found a hack to make an SVG have different thumbnails on different pages, in case you might be interested.
Have a great week!
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 23:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Seyfert galaxies. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Norepinephrine. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Slashme,
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Slashme.
Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.
New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Slashme. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stevo Todorčević. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
Thanks for your interest in History of Texas A&M University–Commerce (1996–present), Slashme. Would you mind thoroughly copyediting the article? It certainly could use a second set of eyes on it. Also, I'd greatly appreciate if you could maintain the same general structure and tone of the other articles in the series (History of East Texas Normal College, History of East Texas State Normal College, History of East Texas State Teachers College, History of East Texas State College, and History of East Texas State University), or else harmonize those articles with the edits you deem necessary on this article. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there a functionality to add white circles to the parliamentdiagram in arch mode? I need to draw an independent candidate under the white color. What do other users do in cases like these? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
<g id="Party2" style="fill:#FFFFFF">
<g id="Party2" style="fill:#FFFFFF; stroke:#000000; stroke-width:1">
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))
This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.
ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
What is the font you use in the hemicycle parliamentary diagrams? Thanks. JackWilfred (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Myth of Mental Illness. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi SlashMe!
Thank you very much for giving my article a good review! I am going to continue working on it. Quick question: Can you tell if I uploaded/tagged the image of Martha Wall correctly?
Best,
madgol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madgol (talk • contribs) 09:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madgol (talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Silicon Alley. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear SlashMe,
Thanks for the images added to Ball Transfer Unit. They certainly make it easier for those not in the relevant industries to understand what it is / how it works / how it's used. I have removed my request for images from the talk page. Mermaldad (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Earthquake prediction. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Slashme
I wrote the original section called gene of uncertain significance that has been rolled into variant of uncertain significance. I assume I can go ahead and modify the variant of uncertain significance section?
The key points I tried to connect together when I wrote the section were:
We known where in the body every gene in humans is expressed so we know a something about the function of every gene in humans. But only 5000 of the 20,000 genes in humans have been connected to a disease. To put it another way, there are 2 types of gene. Genes that have been connected to a disease such as CFTR which causes cystic fibrosis and genes that have not been connected to a disease such as RNF4. We don't know of a human (yet) who has a disease caused by mistakes (pathogenic variants) in RNF4.
If you have a gene that has been connected to a disease such as CFTR and cystic fibrosis when you find a change in the CFTR gene you need to figure out if the change causes that copy of the gene to malfunction. If it is a change that cause that copy of the gene to be 'broken' such as a premature stop or a frameshift then it is a pathogenic variant. But sometimes we find a change and we don't know if it inactivates the copy of the gene that it is in or not. When we don't know what the change will do that is a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). We only apply VUS and the other 4 categories when we KNOW what disease is caused by mistakes in the gene.
The committee had to invent a term (GUS - gene of uncertain significance) for situations where the gene has NEVER been connected to a human disease such as RNF4. All we know about RNF4 is that a mouse with mistakes in the gene has heart defects and dies in utero.[2] So let's say a lab did whole genome sequencing on a human fetus that had died in utero and at autopsy they found heart defects. And let's further suppose that the lab found a frameshift variant in both copies of the RNF4. Well, we know that both copies of the RNF4 gene do not work because frameshift variants kill the gene's function. But we STILL don't know that we have the answer because no one has ever connected RNF4 to a HUMAN disease! The lab would report this as a GUS because it thinks it has the answer but can't prove it. Labs do NOT try to use the 5 tier classification if the gene is a GUS because it is misleading to designate something a pathogenic GUS or a VUS GUS in a lab report.
The importance of the Wiki entry lies in the fact that thousands of people are having their genome sequenced now and there is a growing group of individuals who want to analyze their own genome. They will turn to Wiki to understand some of basic concepts needed to understand the medical literature concerning how labs classify variants.
DavidDpaulbick (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
References
Hi "pal". Well, it's been a week, and judging from the lack of replies at VUS, I'd be willing to bet that jytdog is one of the few people who care a lot about primary sources! (S)he and I have apparently agreed to disagree while staying on our own sides of the line in the sand, which should promote prolonged peaceful coexistance. I added a supplementary viewing section to VUS, in case you aren't folllowing it. DennisPietras (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Iazyges. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Alessandro Velotto, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
As you can tell from the article's revision history, I created it as a redirect to the list of Pokemon 7 years ago and have not touched it since. An IP editor has since been trying to make it an article about some actor. If the article about said actor is unfit for Wikipedia, the correct course of action would be to simple revert it back to a redirect, proposing it as deletion I feel is overkill, and sending the article creator, me, a notification about it when it has really nothing to do with me is annoying. Please refrain from doing this, thanks Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
We now have 815 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.
The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.
Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.
This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about that, will undo that. As to the Wilgenhof page, can I ask why you are merging it? Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checker1993 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Way you destroy the work of other contributors? Your ideas is not compulsory for others! They are no discution concerning this relpacement. Bogdan Uleia (talk)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MAKS Air Show. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that revert on the Martin Scorcese article. If you have a moment, please take a look at this editor's other contributions, which are, to my eye, of similar quality. The problems with his edits are that the writing is very poor and he simply will not format his referenced correctly. In addition, he never uses edit summaries, does not respond to talk page messages, and uses multiple IPs to make edits. So far, I have reported two of those IPs to AiV, to no affect. I've requested semi-protection on the Silence article because of his edits. Not sure what will come of that. I am at my wit's end, quite frankly. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Your CSD request here surprised me. Normally, this is what I would request for a useless page like that, but in this case I was hesitant because of the extensive history and talk page edits. That's why I tried to move the page to an archive.
I suppose we'll find out if the history is a concern when an admin takes a look at it. — Gorthian (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Slashme,
As a courtesy I would like to advise you that the deletion request you flagged on Secret Wish Fairy Dance is being contested. Minor amendments were made to conform regarding tone and the challenge is based on your charges of: being promotional, subject matter triviality and official company press release use. Thank you. Fashionista55 (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.
We now have 815 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Sungenis. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
You just thanked me for an edit I made in 2009... thank you, too! Pgallert (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Field-programmable gate array. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey Slashme! I think I made my user page? Does it still go in as an article for review? If not, then I think I made an error... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumcheese (talk • contribs) 20:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the tips! I think I've got it now :D Quantumcheese (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I rendered your blend. :-) File:Wikipedia logo puzzle globe spins horizontally and vertically, revealing the contents of all of its puzzle pieces (4K resolution) (VP9).webm Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:American Pekin. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Slashme! Thank you again for supporting the Sustainability Initiative, which aims at reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. Over the past two years, more than 200 Wikipedians from all over the world have come together to push the Wikimedia movement towards greater sustainability.
What's new?
We are writing you this message because there is great news: The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has finally passed a resolution stating that the Foundation is committed to seeking ways to reduce the impact of its activities on the environment. Also, we have created a cool logo and found a nice name for the project which you can see on the right :-)
What's next?
Currently, we are working with Wikimedia Foundation staff to make sustainability a key priority for the selection of a new location for Wikimedia servers in Singapore. Also, we have presented the Wikimedia Foundation with a green energy roadmap to have all Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy by 2019.
Please help!
Let's keep this project moving forward – and there are several ways in which you can help:
If you have any questions, you can contact us on on Meta. Again, thank you very much for your support! --Aubrey and Gnom (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Microscope. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing Madagascar 5, Slashme.
Unfortunately PRehse has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:
Article has been reverted several times by the IP which was banned for that behavior.
To reply, leave a comment on PRehse's talk page.
Peter Rehse (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox software. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 815 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!
But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.
Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear Slashme,
Is it possible to make a semi hemicycle parliamentary seating layout with your tool? As in, the seating arrangement that Australia uses, which combines hemicycle and westminster benches.
Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.108.220 (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear Slashme,
following your comment, I added a reference to my article. Do you think it is enough? Thank you, Jennivoyelle (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi I saw that you have made some modifications to the above page and added some tags. I saw that you also have New pages reviewer rights which I have recently got too. I was wondering why you didn't mark the page as reviewed despite all the work you did on it? I'm trying to work out the best way to reduce the backlog. Cheers --Domdeparis (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Martin H. M. Schreiber, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Nick Moyes (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Slashme. Good question - just be a bit patient with me will you, I've just unreviewed it and am now re-reviewing it so I can leave a detailed recommendation as a page review on the creator's talk page with my recommendations for work to it that needs doing. I wasn't sure how else to leave that feedback except by unreviewing then reflagging it as reviewed. I'd welcome feedback if there is a better way, instead of just via the Talk page comment. However - I'd not appreciated every reviewer got an immediate alert if a page is unrevieweed, so maybe I've not helped here. Hoping this makes sense. You can check out the creator's talk page for my comments in about 10 minutes from now. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
No problem. But do you think this is a bit of feedback that could be given to the review process- i.e. either add a delay in auto-notification to the first reviewer which only gets sent if the page isn't re-reviewed within a set time period, say 30 minutes? Or maybe allow a reviewer to flag a page as 'pending' to avoid others working on it. Maybe this isn't a big issue - I'd had this article on my radar from earlier today (via my smartphone) to look at, but when I came to it later (on my PC), I found you'd already processed it. Probably, like me, you're workng through from oldest to most recent, so inevitably reviewers are likely to cross paths in this way? I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Money.Net. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing—Alpha 1 (Robert Silverberg anthology)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Winged Blades Godric 11:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Voortrekkers (youth organization).svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Isaac Newton in popular culture. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thank you so much for creating the rotating Wikipedia globe. You probably have no idea how valuable it is for the community! :) Can you please also upload a .webm version of the globe? It is difficult to use it in an editable form. Alternatively, if you can, please do upload a .mp4/.mov file on Vimeo under the same CC license so that we can easily download and use it in any video editor. Thank you so much once again! --Psubhashish (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Backlog update:
Technology update:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Deaths by type of illness. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Xbox One. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Slashme ! i have one question about the parliament diagram. is it possible to add spacing options or smt else for the arch diagram to create a diagram simular to the polish sejm or finnish riksdag diagrams on wikipedia. And thank you for creating this amazing tool to feed my addition to elections and parliamentory diagrams Best wishes
(sorry for poor english its not my first language) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingcow 1234 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Is the suggestion to add gaps in the arches of dots, or to try to match the seating plan of certain specific parliament houses?
If the idea is to add gaps to space out the dots into wedges, I don't really see the advantage, but if a consensus emerges that it's better, I could certainly write code for that layout.
If the idea is to make them fit specific seating layouts, that's not in the scope of the tool: the idea is to make it easy for the user to understand the relative size the parties and to understand how many representatives they have. It would make the tool too complicated if I tried to match the layouts of various parliaments, and it would remove the benefit of offering a standard diagram type across the project.
This is a common request, and it would not be that difficult to code a tool that allows templates of parliaments to be made and filled in:
I'm not sure that this is a worthwhile goal, but if you feel strongly about it, add your voice to this feature request on GitHub: feel free to connect to others who also want this. If there's enough support for the request, I could certainly code it. --Slashme (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
OK! Please remember to support the request on GitHub. --Slashme (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fighter aircraft. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Slashme,
The parliament diagrams generated by your tool are in the category 'translate' so that there is no text. The category is found drowned under the number of files that have nothing to do there.
May you change your tool and see if it is possible to do a batch process to remove all these files in the category ?
Join me on Commons where I connect me often.
Thanks
--Michka B (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I've finally gotten around to removing that template. I'll now look at how to best clean up the category. Sorry for the delay. --Slashme (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Most of the team was at Wikimania, talking to people, getting meaningful input from the editors, giving talks, hacking around :)
You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.
Hi Slashme,
Nice to see you on af.wiki! I have been trying to update some of the chemistry pages there lately. A page like organic chem got a fair bit of hits (up to 15 or so, I think a lot of them schoolkids) every day, but it was nothing but a bunch of loose red links. The page af:Biochemie is about as dismal. I am an inorganic solid state chemist and really do not feel up to cleaning that one up. Care to give us a hand with that? Jcwf (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carbylamine-choline-chloride. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.
Backlog update:
Technology update:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Dear Slashme,
Thanks for your review in the page valuation (auditing), however, i would like to request for some clarification in this topic.
Valuation (finance): is the process of determining value of assets and liability by the management appearing the balance sheet of the company whereas valuation (auditing): is the review process of value determined by the management of the assets and liability appearing in the balance sheet.
They are distinct concept and related with independent field of study. Need your coordination and consideration
Thanks in advance Nirjal Shrestha