Jump to content

User talk:Bluemoose/archive9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Bluemoose

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ILovePlankton (talk | contribs) at 17:42, 3 May 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/archive1
/archive2
/archive3
/archive4
/archive5
/archive6
/archive7
/archive8

I might reply here or on your page, I'm a bit crazy like that.

Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)

Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


New feature for AWB

Hi :-) Good job done with AWB. I left this message for you on souceforge; [1] --Joanjoc 19:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! --Joanjoc 22:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebot bug

This edit by User:Bluebot is kind of wrong. At line 71, it took the <noinclude> from around a category link, thus adding the article to a category it shouldn't be in. (Of course, the category shouldn't have been there in the first place!) Cheers, User:dbenbenn 20:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks for pointing that out. Martin 20:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, never mind. I got <noinclude> and <includeonly> confused. The article was already in the cat before Bluebot came along. Sorry. User:dbenbenn 21:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For all the changes and fixes you do...

...Thanks! Syrthiss 14:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OOO I didn't know that the auto was working yet. That will indeed help. Thanks even more! Syrthiss 16:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript

First of all, shouldn't you make your find-and-replace case insensitive? You could also add another prompt for case sensitivity. Back to the code, though, try this - it should work: 

m = ArticleText.match(/\\[\\[([^[]*?)\\|([^[]*?)\\]\\]/, g);
for (var i = 0; i < m.length; i++)
{
  //do some code
  n = m[i].toString();
}

Note, though, that javascript is different in this way: each instance is m[i], not. For example, the first line in the for loop should read: 

n = m[i].toString();

instead of: 

n = m.toString();

Let me know if this doesn't work. And please tell me when you're script is done, so I can test it out! --M@thwiz2020 19:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I tried testing your script by adding it to my monobook but I don't even see the tabs (replace, whitespace) come up. Do you know what's happening? I already ctrl+F5'd, so that's not the problem. --M@thwiz2020 20:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Excellent, I've fiddled around with it a bit, and it works as desired, thanks! As you may have guessed I am totally new to JS so i may take a while to get the actual link simplifyer working properly. I think the problem is that you have linked 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Martin/monobook.js/replacetab.js' whereas you should have added Bluemoose rather than Martin (probably my fault for always signing as Martin ;-) Also, is there a program that you use to help generate the JS? or do you just experiment in the monobook? thanks again Martin 20:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for catching that. What I do is, in Firefox, I click on Tools > Javascript Console and I can play a bit with code there to see what happens. Other than that, I just test it in monobook. --M@thwiz2020 20:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the console is useful, also, I have just found that dreamweaver is a fairly decent JScript IDE, although I guess I am too used to the ultra cool visual studio IDE. p.s. feel free to experiment in User:Bluemoose/monobook.js/replacetab.js. Martin 21:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just committed to CVS. I (a) added [[Dog|dog]] --> [[dog]] simplification and refactored the rest of the simplification so that the function now takes up only about half as much space as it used to. I also added the 4th function and the better, refactored code to your js script. --M@thwiz2020 22:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever heard of editcountitis? I call my condition watchlistitis. I checked my watchlist, saw you edited the script, looked at your changes, saw the move, and immediately started editing it.
I was going to propose adding the bad-link fixer, but now that you're calling it a formatter, maybe it's better not to. (Otherwise, I could be accused of making an AWB semi-bot sub w/o the disclaimer at the end of the edit summary.) --M@thwiz2020 23:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, javascript's equivalent of URLDecode() seems to be escape(). However, since I don't know what URLDecode is supposed to do, just try escaping strings in Firefox's javascript console and see if it has the right effect. As for HTMLDecode, javascript has no equivalent. You have to write your own really long script - like this. Ouch. --M@thwiz2020 16:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approvals group

Just wanted to let you know that I have removed references to the approvals group from both the main bots page and the approvals page. See Wikipedia Talk:Bots for my reasoning. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you should know

User:Avillia has made an AWB that does not need authentication. ILovEPlankton 06:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big problem. See the bottom of my talk page and the bottom of Plankton's talk page. Well, this was doomed to happen eventually. I think that if the site doesn't remove Avillia's software or if Avillia reposts it somewhere else, we might be able to block him. (Think about it: add a clause to the semi-bot proposal that states that any misuse of semi-bots can lead to a block, then quickly ratify the guideline.) --M@thwiz2020 16:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
his versoin doesn't work yet he says on his user page he is in the process of updating it. and also to let you know if you don't quit the AWB and you change the approved version the old one will still work. ILovEPlankton 16:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds? Or an advanced telepathic connection between all Homo sapien sapiens that only the highly intellectual can detect? No, wait, that's the same thing...
Take a look at WP:BLOCK#Users who exhaust the community's patience. I think that this policy would apply in this situation (although it is only to be used if Avillia is uncooperative, of course). --M@thwiz2020 16:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which of User:Avillia's edits were bad? --Ligulem 16:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We never said any of his edit were bad. ILovEPlankton 17:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(S)he didn't edit with the hacked AWB. All (s)he did was make the software, which, in itself, is an offence. --M@thwiz2020 17:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. But I don't think this is an offence. AWB is open source and there is no restriction of client software for editing Wikipedia. AWB is not a bot, as long as it is not used like a bot. The only thing that Avillia has to do is to publish the sourcecode, otherwise this would be a breach of the GPL license. Please bear in mind that open source software projects can fork quickly. Also, sometimes blocking users achieves quite the opposite of what the blocker intended. So please be careful. And think twice. --Ligulem 17:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I do, I think it is an offence to create an that will be used for vandalism. It specifically says All editing done with it must be within Wikipedia policy and guidelines. and i believe anybody that uses that will most likely use it to vandalize wikipedia. ILovEPlankton 17:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I dont think you understand, he is making a version available that anybody could use, including vandals. While probably not in breach of any policy as it is such a specific issue, it is certainly in breach of common sense. Plus GPL has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Martin 17:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect, I have understood that he makes available an AWB exe to the public (I have seen the link and the download page), which breaks the GPL if he doesn't publish the modified sources. And it is correct that the GPL has nothing to do with wikipedia policy. I'm just wondering how you want to hinder what happenend. I'm sorry to disagree with you on this, as I highly respect you. I see that this is a delicate thing. But if you think this correctly to its end, you will come to the conclusion that the registration page system does have some flaws that I believe cannot be corrected by threatening/issuing blocks. And with due respect, who defines common sense? --Ligulem 18:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commonsense is not to make this software available to everybody, sure anyone could change the source how they want, but someone capable of that could easily make their own vandal software anyway. Martin 18:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that anyone who uses a changed AWB, even an AWB that does not honor the check page, is assuming bad faith. Martin, you are not responsible for what people do with AWB. Everyone is responsible on his own for what he/she does with his/her edits on this wiki. And everyone is entitled to use whatever client software she/he chooses. That's how this wiki works. If I assume good faith of Avillia, which I have no evidence to assume the contrary, I come to the conclusion that he doesn't agree with the registration system of the original AWB and of the exe's you are providing. So he is doing a different exe. That's all. Martin, you are not responisble for that exe and you do not need to try to stop its spreading. This is pointless. Assuming that he wants to make his changed AWB available for vandals is assuming bad faith either. I know I have opened another wormbox with my disagreement here. At least, I hope you are assuming my good faith. --Ligulem 18:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of the AboutBox.cs file, it says "Copyright (C) 2006 Martin Richards". Hence, re-publishing/changing the source code is a violation of this copyright, is it not? --M@thwiz2020 18:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Read the license of AWB. Sorry if I am a nitpicker. But there are some facts here that can't be argued away, even if they are unwelcome and unwanted or unexpected. --Ligulem 18:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a legal issue, regardless of what license the source code has, he should not be redistributing software that could used to harm the encyclopedia. Martin 18:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it is a legal issue. To the contrary. I wrote to Mathwiz that it is none. As long as everybody is abiding by the rules and policies and the spirit of wikipedia he/she may use whatever client software she/he wishes. It doesn't matter that this software might be used for vandalism. As long as there isn't any vandalism done, we have no reason to block anybody. --Ligulem 19:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(conflict) What part are you referring to? I just read this in the license:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether

gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. 

We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and

(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.

It sounds to me like anyone can view the code, but the code can still be copyrighted. And copyrighted code, I believe, cannot be replicated. --M@thwiz2020 18:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The GPL works the same way as the GFDL, which you agree to whenever you save your edits here. This does not touch the copyright of your edit. But it doesn't hinder others to modify and republish what you wrote however they want, as long as they comply with the GFDL, which allows exactly that and you have agreed on. --Ligulem 19:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licencing the source under the GNU General Public Licence means I as the user have the right to modify and redistribute as I see fit. In addition, I am distributing the source code on request. (I'm allowed to require a request, although I can't turn one down. I have to require it until I patch up some issues with SF CVS.).

That being said, I'm actually moving on the fence right now. It is true that my beliefs are that there should be no hinderance to the use of these tools; That a new vandal would not know about AWB, and a later vandal with the interest could easily modify AWB to remove the check, just as I have. I also believe that this hinderance is against the spirit of the GPL, a philosophical spirit I very much so endorse, and I do believe that the approval processes for things like this can be subject to extreme bias. (Do you think I would get approved to any of the projects I've been tooling with right now?)

I do not appreciate the agressive attitudes everyone involved has had in regards to my attempts to modify and my sucesses in modifying these programs.

Until I make a decision one way or another in the next day or two (at most), I'm keeping the link up. If you wish to try and get a Community Patience WP:Block, go ahead and try. If you want to get a ArbCom ruling saying I can't distribute the software, go ahead and try. That's all I got to say. --Avillia 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you would not be approved to any of the projects you've been "tooling with" (178 in main is below my limit) because (IMO) you lack the experience with Wikipedia to understand the harm that your actions in modifying these tools could potentially cause to the Wikipedia project. Your hostility toward the developers and your blatant sabotage of the AWB tool will likely discourage others from trusting you in the future, and the only way to regain that trust is to take down the link and admit that you made a mistake. If the link is still up within a couple of days, I suggest that this be brought before the ArbCom--what (s)he's doing may be legal, but Wikipedia doesn't have to put up with it. I'd also suggest that removing authentication from GPL apps be amended to the Semi-bots proposal or included in another proposal, and I feel that if an individual creates a tool/modification that is potentially harmful to the site, any editor should have the right to take down the links to that tool until community consensus can be reached as to whether to allow/disallow the tool to be public on WP. It shouldn't be the other way around. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Avillia, I understand that you are upset by warnings about blocks. As I didn't see every detail of the interactions with participants in this issue, I cannot give a full assessment whether everybody was right in saying this or that. I know that sometimes people on this wiki are a bit too fast in threatening with blocks, this comes partway because there are a lot of vandals that admins deal with. You do not qualify as a vandal :-). Please, I ask you not to get too heated about things like that. Although you are correct, there is consensus here on this wiki - and this wiki is consensus driven - that providing an unrestricted AWB exe poses some needless risks, that vandals can abuse your exe. At least, we can admit that it makes it easier for vandals to provide an unlimited exe. But, please, don't go on a crusade on that matter. What makes you believe you couldn't be allowed to contribute to AWB? BTW I do not agree that what you did qualifies as being banned from contributing to AWB (I mean on the code level). I also see no problem in putting you on the check page. But please, everybody calm down. Stop threatening with blocks, and Avillia, please take down your exe and start talking to me what you would like to change on AWB. I'm an AWB developer too (though I contributed only some small tweaks). Please note that it was a great move by Bluemoose to put his AWB source under GPL. Please bear that in mind. Let's not nedlessly spoil that in another futile wiki-battle. --Ligulem 22:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unstubby stubs

Hi Martin,

Thanks for making the unstubby stubs list. I wasn't sure if the list drilled down to stub subcategories, so I made an outline of some related categories. When you have some "free time," would you mind adding these to User:Bluemoose/Unstubby stubs? Thanks. :-) Rfrisbietalk 20:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you so, so much! --M@thwiz2020 21:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your comment on my talk page

See User talk:Locke Cole#Semi-bot cabal

Don't exagerate "frustration", I suppose persuing the Semi-bot proposal would still be the course of action leading to least frustration for the wikipedia community as a whole. --Francis Schonken 10:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...funny. I'll keep it in mind for the terminology I'll use when reporting about the widespread abuse of semi-bot technology. No need for that currently. Sorry. Thanks for supporting the run it's course approach. --Francis Schonken 10:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatter

After meticulously scouring, editing, and testing the formatter, I think I've (almost) perfected the bad link fixer! The only mistake it makes User:Mathwiz2020/sandbox is that [[Image:Blank.jpg|frame|[http://www.test.com]]] incorrectly becomes [[Image:Blank.jpg|frame|[http://www.test.com]], although the code required to fix this problem (which I did use at some point) only makes other mistakes in the long run, so it is best just to leave this up to the user to fix. (Surprisingly, internal links at the end of an image only get messed up if they're incorrect to begin with, I think.) --M@thwiz2020 00:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hello once apon a time you made this post on this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:213.243.185.219

"Be careful

You have editted a number of pages, changing numbers, deleting text, adding other text/numbers, without providing any references for your information, please do not do this, also, do not delete text from talk pages. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 21:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)"

The user in question has not stopped doing that and has contiuned I have made a request here number 7.18 Kurt Leyman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse

If you could go there and look at what I have posted and then look at what you posted on the users talk page, and combine these 2 facts then maybe these acts of vandalism can stop (Deng 21:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Re: AWB update problems

When I go to update my AWB (because it is out of date, as it says when I try to make edits with it), the sourceforge site's only recent version posted it 2.3 something, and according to the site on WP, there is up to version 2.5.something. I'm just curious as to why the new version is not available for download since the old one won't work. It's like I'm stuck somewhere in the middle...I can't use the previous version, but can't get the newer one. Could you please look at this. Thank you. → J@red  22:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The newest version on sourceforge is 2.501, this is the only enabled verion at present, as can be seen here. Martin 22:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD on DRV

Someone has questioned your deletion of this page. Kotepho 01:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament

Could you have a look at this article's history? I've reverted severl times in the belief that it's just vandalism but I'm starting to have second thoughts. One reason for thinking it's vandalism is edits like this where the editer puts in "...ministries after Jesus retired to office work. It's a sequel to the third Gospel." The problem is that the editor comes in with a different IP every time so they can't really be warned. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How odd, it doesnt entirely look like vandalism, but there isnt much to do other than keep rolling it back, if it carries on for much longer we could consider a range block, that might be a little harsh at the moment though. I'll keep an eye on it as well. Martin 08:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Martin. I also thought about semi-protection to try and get the editor to discuss things. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On further inspection I see this has been going for 2 weeks now, so I doubt it will stop soon, semi-protecting would seem like a good move, normally persistent users/vandals move on to the talk page, so maybe we could start communicating with him/her. Martin 09:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've just finally managed to upload a new version of the .NET Bot Framework. It now has support for getting the links to a particular article, using the Editor.GetLinksToArticle(string Article) function. All functions are properly documented using XML documentation. Many of you had issues with opening the ZIP file - these issues have now been properly resolved. The new version can be found at the usual URL. Thanks, Werdnabot (DNBF)/T\C on behalf of Werdna648 [[User talk:Werdna648|T] /C\@ 02:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.NET Bot Framework Update 1

Hi there, I've just finally managed to upload a new version of the .NET Bot Framework. It now has support for getting the links to a particular article, using the Editor.GetLinksToArticle(string Article) function. All functions are properly documented using XML documentation. Many of you had issues with opening the ZIP file - these issues have now been properly resolved. The new version can be found at the usual URL. Thanks, Werdnabot (DNBF)/T\C on behalf of Werdna648 T/C\@ 02:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regex

i was wondering, as i've seen you offer it before, if it would be possible to run a regex for me? i've tried downloading the dump myself, but i have a problem unpacking it (namely, unfortunately, bad RAM). the part where you might be hesitant is that it is a fairly large regex, consisting of lots of misspellings (exampl|exampel|etc.). the part where i might encourage you is when you could think about how short in comparison it is to run that regex when you think about how long it will be for me to AWB the whole text-file list you get from the dump. ;)

so anyways, could you please run a regex for me, possibly? :) JoeSmack Talk 06:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem, let me know what the regex is. Martin 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the regex. Taking the wikisource instead of a copy from the prima facie article is best methinks. Non-case sensitive please, and who knows, it may need more than the standard 30,000 result limit. Much, much appreciated Martin. JoeSmack Talk 15:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The regex gets lots of false positives, I think the reason is it is match "thier" for example, this means any word that contains this will be a match, and when you consider all the obscure names and foreign words its easy to imagine that this will will match lots it isnt meant to. To resolve this I would add more spaces, or a better would be to specify the word boundry, e.g. "\bthier\b". Martin 16:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i bet 'thier' brings up stuff like 'healthier' a lot. I forgot how on-the-ball the database dump searcher tool is. Soooo, it should be like so? I've included most variations so I don't have to rely on the variablness of a query like "refer" to turn up "referring" and "refferred". JoeSmack Talk 17:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. oooh, will that exclude non-case sensitiveness if i throw in those boundaries too?
It looks fine now, I'll be busy for the weekend though, so it might be a day or 2 now. thanks. Martin 17:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noooo problem. Thanks for the regex run + tips for effectiveness. JoeSmack Talk 18:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a quick look, it is still matching way to much stuff, I think possibly because there are some correct spellings in there, such as "writer" and "writing". Martin 21:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! You know it figures, the THREE xmls i did by memory, i did wrong. writer and writing (that should be writting and writter) should be the only two, i promise. here is the fixed regex, if it is still needed. it has also been simplfied by the mathwizz. my sincerest apologies. JoeSmack Talk 23:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a basic one word matching expression, I would use \s\bfoobar\b\s instead of \bfoobar\b as it is a bit more conservative about what it will try to match.

For example \befect\b will match http://efect.someplace.org/ which is not something a person is likely to want to do when searching for spelling errors.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-05-01 07:37

Cat-keyer

Okay, I've made it so it adds a button ([[) to the end of the editing toolbar (if you have it enabled). If you select the last word of a category (or the whole thing except for the braces), then it will correctly add either the name or, if there are no spaces, just the title of the page. Some bugs: if no text is selected, it pastes Category:People|key, but I can't get it to paste the opening and closing braces, too. I just utilized a MediaWiki javascript function because I was too lazy to copy and paste it, but if you really want it to function better (e.g., prompting cat names if nothing is selected, not readding key if there's already a key, automatically adding key to all categories without a key, etc.) then I can just paste the MediaWiki code into your script and that should work. --M@thwiz2020 20:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks a lot, I'll have a look further when I've got more time, will be v. useful for the uncategorised good articles project. Martin 21:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A favor please

Hello friend, do you remember me? In the month of September 2005, your vote had made me an administrator. we all know that the life here is exciting and full of challenges. I would request you to please spare fem moments for me, and favor me with your comments and suggestions (here please) on my performance as a wikipedian. Let us continue to build the Better than the Best global encyclopedia. Thank you and regards. --Bhadani 10:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatter debugged!

After having some really bizarre experiences with certain regexes, I've finally gotten the formatter completely debugged! You can run it at User:Mathwiz2020/sandbox to see it's full functionality. Just one question - do you want the formatter to change [[Test|Tested]] to [[Test]]ed? Rich Farmbrough wrote a regex that does just that and I can easily implement it. --M@thwiz2020 21:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)</nowiki>[reply]

Okay, I had to change Rich's regexes a bit but they're now working really well! You can test them out in the top two paragraphs of my sandbox. --M@thwiz2020 21:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try refreshing (control + F5). When I run it on my sandbox, it doesn't change [[Test|Test''ed'']] at all. --M@thwiz2020 21:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you meanted it moved two single quotes (italics) outside but you meant one double quote. Well, I fixed it now so that it only moves word characters outside of the link, since the wiki-software seems to only link word characters. I also re-added the image fixer because, as far as I can tell, it does not cause any problems. If you see a problem, list it on my sandbox and I'll try to debug it. Thanks! --M@thwiz2020 20:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two to-do items: (1) Fix image fixer greediness. (2) Add look-ahead/behind so that it doesn't mess up the refs as it does on Bill Gates. I'll do them tomorrow, probably. --M@thwiz2020 21:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB shortcut keys

Martin - There's another way to do shortcut keys. On line 840 of Main.Designer.cs, for example, btnStart's text is "S&tart the process". The ampersand means that alt+t will click the start button. You don't need any of the code you just added, because most buttons already have shortcuts! Alt-A is "add", alt-r is remove, alt-c is clear, alt-t is start, alt-i is ignore, and alt-s is save. In addition, alt-f is file and alt-h is help. There are no shortcuts for stop, preview, show changes, and find or menus list and general. --M@thwiz2020 21:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The alt + key shortcuts interfere with the webBrowser control, which is why I added the new control + key type, I don't know why the alt + key ones are enabled at the moment, I think maybe Adrian added them at some point. Martin 21:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Mohammad Gani

Hello Martin. Not knowing how to contact you, I put the message here. I read about No Original Research and now understand why Wikipedia is reluctant to allow original research. Thanks.Gani 01:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles participants

I did lotsa duty on the EB 1911 project, which seems to have been 'botted into the background (lots of articles which are still raw 1911 have been reduced to something generic). Every time I sign onto one of these projects, the subject pages get vaporized over copyvio issues. And now all my annotations on 1911 are also vaporized, with the deletion of the pages themselves. Sigh.

The pages are too long. No more than 100 topics per if you want annotations. I do do research, and love to point in the right direction, making sometimes inspired guesses. But is this another project that gets nullified?

And Tony Sidaway is probably going to block me forever. Another sigh. --FourthAve 09:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Hello. I was wondering if you could add me to the list of enabled members of AWB. I'm dying to try out the software, but I've been held back for two days now, as I'm still in the request list. Care to help me out? Please? User:Deepujoseph/sig 10:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That was fast! Thanks. User:Deepujoseph/sig 11:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

AWB removal

My edit did NOT only affect whitespace - it also unicodified several other sections of the page, which you can see by scrolling further down the diff. I've requested re-addition to the list of authorised users. Cynical 07:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that it was me who removed my name from the list of AWB requests - I no longer need adding to the list as I finally got round to downloading the source and building a check-free version. Cynical 14:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why does everyone seem intent on building a check free version? ILovEPlankton 17:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bluemoose/archive9&oldid=51392395"