Jump to content

User talk:Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

You've got mail!

{{you've got mail|subject=|ts=09:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)}} Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 09:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC) (Has your email address changed?) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I just haven't had time to write a reply that would do your question justice. Expect something winging your way later on this evening. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The Progressive Barnstar

Barnstar archived to User:Mr. Stradivarius/Awards. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! The biggest credit, however, should go to yourself for setting this whole thing up. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProjectBanner/banners/WikiProject Linguistics

Hallo again. I think that you are missing the auto parameter in module:WikiProjectBanner/banners/WikiProject Linguistics :-) Christian75 (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Christian. Actually, you think wrong - the auto parameter is going to be enabled by default for all banners, so there's no need to put it in the banner-specific config page. With the way we're doing things now, there's no need (and no way) to pass template parameters through from the config file. That could change though, as this is only a preliminary version. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I was hoping it was done that way :-) Christian75 (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC) and btw. module:Portal/images should be protected again, until it isnt "used" anymore - it still have 2,400,000 transclusions (which is added to the job queue when somebody edits the page), see [1] for transclusions, and the job queue [2] Christian75 (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
That's just the job queue lag. No-one will be able to vandalise any pages by editing Module:Portal/images. The pages listed in Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:Portal/images were cached before the module was unprotected, and if the cache is updated it will use the new image submodules instead. Test it out yourself by making a null edit to any of the pages on the list, and then reloading the list. You'll find that the page won't be listed after that. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
No, its not a cache. Its because the links has not been refreshed yet (thats what the job queue do). I know you can make a null edit, which update the links (but not from the cache, its parse the page and update the links (see Job_queue#Updating_links_tables_when_a_template_changes)), and I know you can not change any pages by editing Module:Portal/images - but you can add jobs to the job queue. 2500000 for every edit at the moment - right now its at 2406190 - if you wait an half hour it will be slightly lower, because some pages has been refreshed (by the job queue). (An other example: I made this edit 20 days ago, which populate the Category:WikiProject Beauty Pageants articles - there should be 4300 pages in that category (but right now there is just 2107 - its increasing daily, when the "job is run" from the job queue) – but it takes really really long time, because the job queue is really high. Thats way some templates is "high-risk", because they add jobs to the job queue (its a warning to the admins, templates with less than 100000 transclusions gets a {{high-use}} instead). The graph of the job queue is not the right picture, because when you edit a "high-risk" templates, it just add two jobs to the job queue (a refreshLinks2 and a htmlCacheUpdate). When theese jobs are run, they become refreshLinks2 and htmlCacheUpdate with 500 in each. When the "new version" of refreshLinks2 is run again, it makes 500 refreshLink, and finaly when refreshLinks is run, it parse the page. That means the graph just show that the job queue is high, but not the exactly number... Christian75 (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Expample: Open Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:Portal/images, pick one page and make a null edit, and check whatlinkshere again - the page is gone - the links has been update with the null edit. Christian75 (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like I haven't been understanding this properly. I had a look at the documentation on mw.org, but it wasn't very helpful. So let me get this straight. Let's take for example Talk:Almond, which is at the top of Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:Portal/images. There is already a job queued up in the job queue to refresh the links on this page, due to my edit to Module:Portal/images here. Are you saying that because this job hasn't been processed yet, that this edit added another job for Talk:Almond to the job queue, and that this edit added a third? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
And also, would protecting the page again cause another job to be triggered? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Modi

We've got problems at Narendra Modi again, involving Gmcssb (talk · contribs) and myself. Gmcssb is repeatedly altering content in the lead that took weeks to obtain consensus. They are aware of the discussions, have even participated to some extent today, and have been warned for edit warring. But still they ignore BRD and mess around with the wording as recently as five minutes ago. I could take this to AN3 but might get a response here since you know the background. Is it time for full protection again? I'd hope not. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to have time to deal with this properly today. Probably AN3 is your best bet. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Time lowered to semi-prot

lowering to semi-protection - only 895 transclusions "only"? Serious?? I'd think that a vandalized template that appeared on even 200 pages would be highly disruptive and therefor high risk. Was there a discussion or guideline somewhere I missed that provides a range of how many transclusions there must be to justify full protection? -- Ϫ 04:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Common sense, I think. IP vandalism calls for semi, not full protection. — Lfdder (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is at WP:HIGHRISK, but it doesn't say anything about the number of transclusions that would warrant protection. For what it's worth, if there are no special circumstances, my general rule of thumb is about 1000 transclusions for semi-protection and about 10,000 transclusions for full-protection. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm more concerned with the impact that a vandalized template appearing on 895 pages would have. It doesn't take much for a malicious user to get autoconfirmed and bypass semi-prot. Imagine a giant swastika or some grossly obscene porn image cleverly placed and constructed to avoid the edit filter and anti-vandal bots, then transcluded onto 895 pages! Or even some determined activist's political message. I've seen it done before. In the amount time it remains live before being reverted it's been seen by who knows how many thousands of readers. Maybe I'm being alarmist but an event like that could even be picked up by the press and seriously embarass us. -- Ϫ 18:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
If I might chime in (again).... I appreciate that templates probably require different (stricter) treatment, but it shouldn't be too much at the expense of 'anyone can edit'. Semi seems like a fair compromise in most cases. Anyway, that's just what I think. — Lfdder (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
OE: I would be inclined to agree if the template was used on a lot of high-profile articles (that's why I protected Template:Pp-pc1), but actually {{time}} looks to be mostly used in userboxes, and only has four article transclusions. (Actually, make that three, because I just removed one.) I don't think that this template is really scandal-bait, but if you notice any other templates I've unprotected that you think might be at risk, just let me know and I'll look into it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.106.248 (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi! And what brings you to my talk page? :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 16:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Your involvement with DRN

Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Portal bar with lower profile

Hi.

I understand you are the author of Module:Portal bar. Have there ever been an attempt to make a version of it with no border and no background? I was thinking doing so might make it less showy.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. If you want to experiment with whatever css you need, then I can translate it into Lua and add it to the module for you, though. Or if you know Lua, feel free to add it yourself. As for non-showy templates, the only related one that I know is {{portal-inline}}. Maybe we could get away with something simple like:
<div style="text-align: center;">{{portal-inline|Art}} {{portal-inline|Science}}</div>
We would need some kind of spacing between the portals, though, as they are bunched up when I view them in Firefox. I'm open to suggestions. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
That's a bit crude. I was thinking something along the line of this:
<div style="width:100%; text-align:center; padding:1px; font-size:88%">
<ul class="hlist">
<li>{{portal-inline|Art|size=tiny}}</li>
<li>{{portal-inline|Science|size=tiny}}</li>
</ul>
</div>
Which gives:
More compatible with your code too. Of course, in this example, the icons ended up at 16px instead of 24px. And I am not sure whether to use <table> or <div> because I don't want it to clear left or right.
I do not know Lua but this specific technical detail wasn't the reason I'm here. I thought I'd go ahead and make a good old template but then I thought I should talk to involved people first, so I don't end up stirring up a hornet's nest by re-creating something that is deleted in a heated TfD and provoking a new wave of attacks in my talk page.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't feel especially strongly about it, but a module would probably be better than a template, as you can have an unlimited number of portals, and if you only list one or two portals, the module doesn't have to check 18 other positional parameters to find that out. I've added something close to your suggested code to Module:Portal bar/sandbox:
{{#invoke:Portal bar/sandbox|main|Art|Science|border=no}}
Feel free to tweak it however you want. It shouldn't be too hard to work out how to change the styles, but you can refer to Module:HtmlBuilder for documentation if you need it. (Or you can just ask me if you prefer.) And don't worry, I won't TfD it or make any attacks on your talk page. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
Thanks a bunch. I can't think of anything else at this time. The module looks good enough.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've added it to the main module, so you can now use it with {{portal bar|border=no}}. Enjoy! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Issue With Namespace detect on a private wiki.

{{YGM}} My problem Might be related to my specific install so I sent the (hopefully detailed enough) information via your email rather than post it here. If it turns out to be more general I can and will repost the information on my talk page. Hope you can help as I am totally lost. EDIT:I neglected to mention Scribunto is configured as standalone highest lua version on linux. C.Jason.B (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hiii! Mr. Stradivarius

Sorry for the trouble, but since you are deleting administrator to this article, Rashmi Singh (author), I would like to ask your opinion about recreating this page. I have done some research and found some good sources and regarding the notability of the subject, i think it just passes notability requirements. What do you think? S SET (U-T-C) 17:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Shivamsetu. :) If you have new sources that demonstrate Singh's notability, go ahead and recreate the article. Or alternatively you can improve the userfied version at User:Ananyaprasad/Rashmi Singh and then move it back to article space. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I will probably recreate that page. Take care! S SET (U-T-C) 09:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

G13 nomination request

Thank you for your interest in evaluating CSD:G13 nominations. Per Wikipedia talk:AFC#HasteurBot Task 1 suspension and User talk:Hasteur#G13 nominations the G13 nominations were suspended for the duration of October to allow editors to focus on the AfC Pending submissions backlog drive. As such your request has not been acted upon automatically. I will give it a manual nudge, but consider that the editors working on saving saving the G13 eligible pages are also the ones working on the backlog burn. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Thanks for letting me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very muchM-236(HZ) (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem - glad I could help. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Help?

Hi Mr. S., I've just performed my first AfC review and have moved the new article Michael Cheng into namespace. If you have a few minutes I was wondering if you might review my work there and give me some feedback on how successful (or unsuccessful) I was at this task. I feel the subject is notable enough for an article but would like your opinion since the news coverage is not overwhelming by any means. I believe you have experience with AfC's right? If not, please correct me. Thanking you in advance. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. :) I've done quite a bit of new page patrol, but I've not really had that much experience at AFC. I agree with you about the notability - the coverage isn't brilliant, but it looks like just enough for the article to squeak by at AfD. I removed the external link because it didn't really look relevant, but everything else looks good to me. Nice work! — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 00:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh I thought you did AfC's too, must have misunderstood. But thanks anyway for the second opinion! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hello,

I have recently been editing the article Stormfront and added this information into the lead as per WP:NPOV's policies regarding due and undue weight. The two sources I cite are both reliable secondary sources, but other editors want to suppress that information from the lead. I have tried solving the dispute in the talk page here, here and here, but it is going nowhere. Other editors have told me to seek a third opinion, so here I am. I believe the current version of the lead lacks neutrality and balance, thus I am proposing a similar resolution as it is done in these two articles, Golden_Dawn_(Greece) and Jared_Taylor: "Scholars and media have described it as neo-Nazi[3][8][9] and fascist,[10] [11][12] though the group rejects these labels.[13]"; "He rejects these accusations himself, saying that his views are reasonable and moderate.[6]" They insist that adding such information into the lead makes the article unbalanced and against WP:NPOV, when it is exactly the suppression of it that does so. So I am asking you to chip in in the talk page, if you do not mind, and give your third opinion. Thank you, --Kobayashi245 (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Issue

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Template links duplicated in article namespace. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering if it's something to do with the name param general just containing the template name without the template: prefix and line 209 of the lua code in Module:Message box? -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
{{ambox
|name  = Cleanup

		self.name = args.name
		local nameTitle = getTitleObject(self.name)
Ah, yes, that looks like it. That would mean that the module passes "[[Cleanup]]" to Module:Category handler, but that category handler doesn't display it because it's in the wrong namespace. Hrm, I'll have a look at how best to fix that. Thanks. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Domonique Foxworth

Hey there, Mr. Stradivarius, just wanted to let you know that I replied to your comment over at Talk:Domonique Foxworth. In short, the matter was resolved, but I'd forgotten about this particular thread. Thanks for your attention and friendly note, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Mises Institute ANI

Hello Strad. I noticed that you commented on the ANI relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Murray Rothbard articles. I see from your user page that you are a respected and thoughtful Admin here. I invite you to keep an eye on, or join the discussion at, these two articles. We would benefit from some fresh thoughts. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Specifico, and thanks for the note. I'll add the articles to my watchlist, but I can't promise that I will have any deep involvement, as I already have quite a few wiki-things going on. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Much obliged. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Keith Paterson

Hi, Please excuse me if I put the cart before the horse. After submitting an article on Keith Paterson some 10 days ago, I only now read that there was a similar article on Keith Paterson which was rejected by you on 26 July 2013. So will you kindly refer me to the article that you rejected so that I can check to see if it was about the same person or some other person having the same name. Thank you. Peminatweb (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Peminatweb

Hi Peminatweb. Go ahead and create the article. The previous content at Keith Paterson was just a two-sentence stub that someone wrote about their friend at school - borderline vandalism really. It won't affect your article at all. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius. Thanks for the details. Peminatweb (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Peminatweb

Another template issue

Hello, Mr. S. Today, there are incoming links to the page Article from 57 other articles that didn't link to it yesterday, and that don't actually contain a link in their wikitext. As far as I can tell, the common element is that the 57 articles on [3] all appear to contain {{Multiple issues}}, which in turn transcludes {{Ambox}}. Is this another Lua issue? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like it, yes. I suspect it's due to a template somewhere using {{ambox|talk=article}}, as a Lua title object is called for the |talk= parameter if it's present. Due to the way {{ambox}} works, and the way the Lua title library works, though, it will be hard to avoid this. It would involve basically rewriting the title library in Lua without hooking through to PHP, complete with lots of fiddly string pattern matching. If we can work out which template is using talk=Article we may be able to work around it, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, found it. Template:Multiple issues/message is passing "Article" through to the first positional parameter of Template:POV, which is then passed through to the |talk= parameter of Ambox. I'll need to check some more to see if we can change this without breaking things too much, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
After some consideration, I've removed the first positional parameter from Template:POV, as it has the least effect on other templates, and it seemed to be mostly misused anyway. (People were using it do denote use in an article section rather than at the top of the page, but it was presumably supposed to be used to make a link to the relevant talk page section.) That should fix things for now, but let me know if you notice any other strange behaviour. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, seems to be working! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

POV template

I don't understand why you removed the "1" parameter in this edit. I read your editsummary, but didn't understand it. Also, if you remove the "1", I think you can remove the |# as well. Can you please explain the edit here in more detail? Debresser (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that the Lua equivalent of {{PAGENAME}} and similar create a link in WhatLinksHere from the article that was tested. This meant that switching Template:Ambox to use Module:Message box produced a whole load of unwanted links in WhatLinksHere. I fixed the worst of those in this edit, but the module still generates WhatLinksHere links for whatever has been passed to the |talk= parameter of {{ambox}}. In the thread above this one RnB noticed that there were a lot of new links to the Article page, and after tracking down the cause (explained above) it seemed easiest to make the fix at {{POV}} rather than try and tinker with {{multiple issues/message}}. Well, I say fix, but it's really a workaround - a true fix on the Lua side of things would take some non-trivial coding. See this VPT thread for some more background. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, the # needs to stay there, because it makes sure the link to the talk page is displayed even if the |talk= parameter is not set. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Why did you fix the |talk= parameter on the documentation, if it is now disabled? Also, perhaps we should remove the |# still. Why do we need a link to the talkpage if there is no discussion there or the section is not indicated? Debresser (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The |talk= parameter of {{POV}} still works - it is the |1= parameter I disabled. I gather that there is always a talk page link displayed because there should always be discussion on the talk page. The documentation says that it shouldn't be used for "drive-by tagging" or as a "badge of shame", so the correct action in the case of no discussion would be to remove the entire template rather than just make the link not display. That's my understanding of this, anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Block promise

I sure hope you keep to your word that you will block AndyTheGrump if he continues, as I've seen over my 7? years on Wikipedia a lot of admins promise to do so, and none go through with it. Frankly, he's been given enough chances, in fact many times I have offered an olive branch to work with him, his idea that his views of policy are the only ones are frustrating at best, but when he goes into personal attacks and irrational rants it because all too much. How many newbies and established editors need to be run off because some think Andy does "good" in "defending Wikipedia policies", honestly there are plenty of good Wikipedians willing to take up the good fight who DONT go around insulting people and making them feel stupid in a mistaken belief that, that behavior is acceptable or needed in order to get a point across.Camelbinky (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Video game multiple platforms reviews

Yes, it was tagged wrong. Now looking at the page it needs a merge of the history and a redirect to Template talk:Video game reviews. I do not have the ability to merge histories.Cky2250 (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Try out Snuggle?

Hi,

I notice that you recently signed up to be informed about Snuggle, a new interface for easy finding of newcomers. Have you tried it already? If so, could you please give your feedback on the same? Aaron would always like to know what can and should be done to better it.

If you haven't tried it already, I suggest you do it :) I find Snuggle to be very helpful when dealing with newcomers, and trying to find helpful and Good Faith new editors.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ping Aaron or me, and we'd be happy to oblige.

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

 Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween Mr. Stradivarius! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween! —  dainomite   15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks.

Mediation

I wanted mediation to continue after the AFD closure, but nothing happened the following day. Unfortunately, Ryulong opted for a merger of the article now - right after removing and re-removing a media file at the NGE page and failing to discuss the matter. I do not know what action needs to be taken, but Ryulong does not appear to want to participate or resolve the issues. Please advise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh and Ryulong doesn't want me communicating with him anymore via talk page. Does this mean I have no other choice but to bring grievances directly to ANI? This whole situation is degrading rapidly it seems. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have restarted the mediation yesterday, but I got distracted by other things. If Ryulong has started a merge discussion, though, then that will mean that we can't restart it (as you suspected). Before you start any discussions at ANI, let me have a word with Ryulong on his talk page to see if he really intends to give up on the mediation. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I thank you for trying Mr. Stradivarius, but if things have to constantly be put on hold when discussions originally unrelated to the center of dispute happen then I longer want any part in the mediation process.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Will you be addressing this or are you holding out on the hope that I will change my mind? Because the latter is not happening any time soon.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I was hoping not to have to shut the mediation down, but from your comments it looks like there's no choice. I'll explain in more detail on the mediation page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
And I am sorry it had to come to this. I have also responded there (and you should probably unlist it from the "current cases" template I guess).—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me. I thought that the bot did that, but it appears not. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This is some grade A bullshit, though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

With help in lua come stalking

Barnstar archived to User:Mr. Stradivarius/Awards. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you very much for the barnstar! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Mediation request Suggestion

I'd like to request that the privileged nature of the mediation process be withdrawn for the Ghost in the Shell 2 mediation discussion concerning, Lucia Black, Ryulong and myself. The reason for this request is that the mediation never got off the ground and it provides key information to support that Ryulong continued to be uncivil, expressed disdain for the process and continued a recognized content dispute after the announcement that it would have to cease for mediation. First, the edit warring and AFD which we waited on, then the subsequent merge discussion long after it was disclosed the mediation would not continue as such disputes ran on. Lastly, because his immediate action upon dropping out of mediation was to re-open a merge discussion that has been brought up no less than four times this year with the last one immediately preceding meditation. Simply put, I believe that the diffs and comments made within should not be protected as not a single issue had been discussed between the parties prior to its close and all the issues were known prior to mediation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This would have not been the case had you not been effectively and actively propagating the dispute that is the root of the mediation, as you have recently done with Bleach (anime).—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry Chris, I'm afraid I can't do that. Firstly, the privilege isn't mine to give away, it is the Mediation Committee's - I can't do it without the consensus of the Committee, and that would mean going against the mediation policy. Secondly, it would set a bad precedent for future parties who were thinking of undergoing mediation. They might not choose to undergo mediation if they think that the discussions might be used in further conduct dispute venues such as ANI and ArbCom. So I don't think there's any way I can grant your request. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I understand. Thanks for taking the mediation case. I understand that Ryulong's behavior cannot be used. Is it acceptable to note that Ryulong broke off the mediation however? It is on his talk page and he openly admits this to be true. I am not sure if the whole matter is effectively secret as in "never occurred" or if just nothing is actionable on interactions on the mediation discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The fact that Ryulong withdrew is also privileged and can't be used as evidence in conduct dispute proceedings. And it's the second option, "not actionable". — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Wikinium

This user is re-undoing undos I am undoing of his edits. I have informed him why I undid it, he has been adding links to this page on every video game within the list List of PC exclusive titles. And adding portals to pages that have portal within the template. If you could help out that would be appreciated. Thanks, Cky2250 (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The user has broken the three-revert rule one of which was not a undo that is alerted to my notifications.Cky2250 (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I won't have time to deal with this today. Try WP:AN3 or WP:ANI, whichever seems more suitable. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Ahhhhh these boards are so hard to know what is best. The articles affected can wait until you are free.Cky2250 (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I had a quick look at the page history, but I couldn't easily tell what the issue was, so I think an ANI thread is probably a better bet than an AN3 thread. Remember to include links and diffs as evidence, and remember to notify Wikinium when you have started the discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

recentley (un)edited addition to article; Wikipedia: Acedemic Use

Dear Mr. Stradivarius i am sorry that you misinterpreted m=the intent of a part edit. i was not meant to be taken as a validation but as an example of how Wikipedia can be vandalized. there was another revision stating that it was an example. but, i greater appreciate people like you who clean up Wikipedia.

-poolic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poolic (talk • contribs) 02:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. S. I hope you can help again. The disambiguation page Synthesis is showing over 400 incoming links, apparently generated by pages that contain either {{Synthesis}} or {{Synthesis-inline}} in their text. Although {{Synthesis}} uses {{Ambox}}, I noticed that {{Synthesis-inline}} does not, so apparently this is a different issue than the one you addressed a few weeks ago. The one template that both of them seem to have in common is {{Category handler}}, so perhaps this is the source of the generated links. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

All the pages I saw used {{synthesis}}, and I reckon this edit should have fixed the problem. Let me know if any of the pages remain in WhatLinksHere after a null edit. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

AFC: Xander Angeles

Hi, thanks for taking the time to review my submission. I noticed it was rejected for failing to meet notability guidelines. I'm wondering if you can be more specific as to the referencing issue you brought up.

  • The Philippine Star (philstar.com) is a major nationally circulated daily newspaper, and we've got two articles from there, written 7 years apart from each other.
  • Philippine Entertainment Portal (pep.ph) is an online media source with full and independent editorial review.
  • The Varsitarian is the student newspaper where the subject went to university.
  • When In Manila is a major metro guide in the Philippines, which also has full and independent editorial review.

What else is required to establish the subject's notability?

Thank you! I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No problems - let me take you through the sources one by one:
  • Philstar - these both look good, and count towards notability in my opinion. However, we treat multiple sources from one publication as one source for the purposes of notability - see WP:GNG point 3.
  • When In Manila - this was written by you, so does not count as independent from the subject, as explained in the section below.
  • PEP - this only contains a passing mention of Angeles, which is not enough to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:GNG.
  • The Varsitarian - normally, we do not accept student publications for the purposes of notability. In addition, Angeles only has a passing mention in it. The article is actually about Team Manila Graphic Design, not Angeles.
Let me know if you have any questions about this. And also, I have some advice about the sources you use in the future. Other editors will generally take a very dim view of any attempts to artificially make your clients seem notable. For example, I would avoid using any material from When In Manila as sources for your other articles (or from any other publication you are affiliated with, for that matter). If you do this, and you get found out, then your reputation on Wikipedia will take serious damage, and you might find yourself at the COI noticeboard or even sanctioned. The best way to get your edits accepted on Wikipedia is to keep strictly neutral and to edit strictly by the guidelines. If you can develop a reputation for your edits being neutral and fair, you will likely find life around Wikipedia a lot easier. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:GNG point 3 says that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." (emphasis mine) I think two articles seven years apart from two different writers about entirely different things really should be considered as two sources. Xander Angeles is the most famous photographer in the country. Regarding the term "independent," I think you and I have different interpretations of what that means. An independent source is a publisher that is not subordinate to the subject. When In Manila is an independent source. They are the publisher, not me, and they did not have to run the article. Regarding your COI warning, its not a COI if I'm not moving it to mainspace. That's why I make edit requests instead of moving things to mainspace myself. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
This article is by a major entertainment magazine.[4] And this one is Cosmopolitan Philippines.[5] Does that better confirm notability for you? I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Those two do count towards notability, I think, although it would be best to have something that talks more about him, rather than about his launch event. Nevertheless, after some reflection I think Angeles probably does just pass our notability threshold. When considering the Philstar pieces, Angeles' awards, and your new links as a totality, it would probably be enough to make the article survive an AfD discussion. So, I've accepted the submission - it is now located at Xander Angeles. Regarding the meaning of "independent", I've taken part in a fair few AfD debates, so my interpretation is grounded in experience of what actually gets accepted here. But if you doubt it, there's no need to take my word for it - just ask any random administrator their opinion on the question and see what they say. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

How many pages do I need to mark as patrolled to be treated as a patroller? And BTW, how do you like my signature? And do you like Sonic the Hedgehog? And are you an admin? Answer me ASAP. --[[Tariqmudallal · my talk]] 00:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What is with the [[]] don't you want to be a template like {{sing|user=Tariqmudallal|talk=my talk}} ... lol.—CKY2250 ταικ 01:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Just for fun. Don't mention about my sig except Mr. Stradivarius. --[[Tariqmudallal · my talk]] 01:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tariqmudallal! I'll answer your questions in order:
  • What kind of patroller do you mean?
  • It's ok, but I'd lose a couple of the <big>...</big> tags.
  • Meh, I guess so...
  • Yes indeed.
Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
About this - the answer is (I think) that any registered user can be a new page patroller. You don't need any special rights or anything. Also, please don't alter other people's talk page posts - see WP:TPG. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Template protection

You've helped in the past with edit-protected requests on {{Articlehistory}} and {{GA/Topic}}. Given the new template protection level, I wonder if I could prevail upon you to lower {{GA/Topic}} from full protection to pp-template? It is merely a lookup list, and the templates that use it are all unprotected (with the exception of articlehistory which is pp-template), so template-level protection should be uncontroversial, and would enable me to make any future tweaks without pestering admins. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. If there are other templates you want reduced to template protection, you can always ask at WP:RFPP as well. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Unblock

Hope you don't mind--I took the conversation on ANI as indicative that an unblock of HiLo48 was supported by the community, and have acted accordingly. What remains is dealing with Collingwood. I think I counted 8 to 2 in favor of a site ban. Care to do the honors? Drmies (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Drmies, I do mind: I don't support a no-strings-attached unblock, and I don't think any of the others that commented on the "Way forward for HiLo" section did either. Though a few users have supported a no-strings-attached unblock, they are not in the majority, and I do not think that this is enough to be able to claim a consensus to unblock exists. Your actions here are sending out the message that if you make personal attacks then you will be unblocked after a short time, and before a proper consensus is reached. Furthermore, it's not just sending the message to HiLo48, but to all editors who read ANI. Allowing incivility and personal attacks in this way is not a good way to improve the editing environment here. I strongly urge you to reconsider. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but the strings are clear: further incivility, further blocks. I think the message is rather that the insults took place in a context which is worthy of consideration: the racist remarks by Collingwood. In the meantime, HiLo was blocked for a considerable amount of time, and comments earlier on in the thread by North8000, Jusdafax, and Stalwart111, not to mention the comment by Jusdafax that a block wasn't necessary in the first place, indicate that plenty editors thought that the comments were a. made in a context that warranted investigation and b. were perhaps partly provoked by Pete's commentary on HiLo's talk page. You said that the conduct by those editors warranted investigation--perhaps that one-month block (that's a really long block) should have waited until after investigation. I don't condone their remarks, nor do I question the validity of a block in the first place, but one month for those remarks... After all, if a block is supposed to prevent further disruption (certainly immediate further disruption), then one may well ask what one month is supposed to do. That HiLo continued his abrasive commentary (or, personal insults) after being blocked is somewhat understandable, and we have in the past allowed users (much) more leeway to "vent" on their own talk page. The respect that I and others have for you doesn't mean that there wasn't some disagreement with the length of the block. Furthermore, I see in HiLo's later comments much more of a realization that they need to be much more careful--and the ROPE that was mentioned once or twice in the thread, I have no doubt they are well aware of that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate Drmies good opinion of my reasoning and feel compelled to add to it, if it will be of any help. I came to know HiLo48 at the WP:ITN feature. I found him to be abrasive and incredibly rude, so much so that I joined with others to have him topic banned for a year. At his subsequent Rfc I urged that he be blocked entirely or even site banned. During the process he was briefly blocked, his first. I made a comment at that time that User:Kim Dent-Brown saw fit to regard as "grave dancing." I found the rebuke a bit shocking, and launched a deeper review of HiLo's edits and reasoning, as well as the high-swearing cultural background of Australian English-speakers, which takes profanity more lightly than most others. It took a bit of time, but I concluded that I may have been wrong to have judged HiLo by my own standards, and welcomed him back to ITN after his year was up. His response of meeting me more than halfway was humbling, given the amount of negative commentary I had previously directed at him, and his subsequent work at ITN has been sound. Mind you I do not always agree with him, but he has gained my respect. I believe his emotional responses that led to his block were provoked (I can relate to anger at being attacked on one's own talk page) and I think his time served will be enough to make him think carefully the next time he feels enraged. We need more editors willing to speak up on Wikipedia. My transformative arc has been remarkable regarding him. To wrap this up: I said at your unanimous Rfa last year that you were someone I trusted with the tools for a lifetime. That still goes, and I hope this statement is of use to you. With best wishes, Jusdafax 08:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the messages you two, and sorry that my reply has been such a long time in coming. I've been kind of putting it off, as I think I was getting a little too emotionally attached to this discussion, and a reply earlier would have only caused more drama. Reflecting back on this whole thing, I think I should have waited longer before issuing the block, and allowed more time for discussion about all the parties. Hindsight is 100%, of course, but the divergence of opinions about my block has shown me that it was more controversial than blocks generally should be. With the discussion now closed, I think we have reached quite a good place, although perhaps not by a route that many people enjoyed (myself firmly included).

Drmies, While I still can't say that I agree with HiLo's unblock, I do appreciate your efforts to resolve all of this, both at ANI and on HiLo's talk page, and I think that you deserve thanks from all of us. Next time, let's do all of this by consensus. I'll seek consensus for any blocks like this that I am tempted to make, and you - well, I am tempted to say something about judging consensus, but it's probably just that our judgement of the consensus back there was different, which I can't get too uptight about. :)

Jusdafax, I do see what you mean about HiLo - I have never doubted that they are editing in good faith, and your point about differing cultural norms is well taken. Next time I get into a situation like this, I will be sure to keep it in mind. Thanks for the kind message, and your continued trust in me given all of this drama is humbling.

As for what to do now, given Drmies' and Kim's advice to HiLo on their talk page, I don't think HiLo can be under any illusions about what will follow from further personal attacks. Hopefully they can now go forth and edit with some sense of normalcy, and we can all leave the drama behind us. I bear HiLo no ill will, and wish them all the best in their future editing. If they does end up getting blocked again, which I hope very much will not happen, it probably won't be by me. Wishing you all the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar archived to User:Mr. Stradivarius/Awards. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

AFC: When In Manila

Hi, thanks again for reviewing When In Manila. First of all, the company doesn't have a PR agency. They have a consultant that helps them get press, and that's me. Second, what I do to assist them in getting press is to pitch newspapers and other sources to send a reporter to interview them. Sometimes I write and submit myself. All of these press outlets have independent editors that make the decision on whether or not the article meets their criteria/needs. If it doesn't, then it doesn't run. So in fact, these are all independent articles, because a free press made the decision to run them. These are not press releases. Given the unreferenced state of the current When In Manila article, I think the changes I've submitted really add depth to the organization's entry, and I'd ask you to reconsider. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Ok, so I wasn't quite correct to say "PR agency". But we do tend to put PR agencies in the same category as other editors who have a financial conflict of interest, so the perspective from Wikipedia policy is the same there. As to the sources, let me address them in turn:
  • Inquirer Libre - this one was written by you, so I'm afraid it doesn't count towards notability. Our criterion isn't just that it was published by a free press, it's that it is completely independent - so nothing written by, or paid for by, the subject.
  • Interaksyon - this one seems ok on the surface, but seems suspiciously like PR. There's a lot of coverage of When In Manila's Twitter trending, and not much at all about any of the other winners. I'd guess that it was written by When In Manila and then just printed as is by the site. There is no author named, which doesn't help.
  • Influential Blogger - this is a blog, which we don't accept as a reliable source.
  • Facebook - this isn't a reliable source either.
  • Philstar - doesn't actually mention When In Manila. There needs to be significant coverage of When in Manila for them to be considered notable per WP:GNG.
I didn't notice there was an article about When In Manila already in the mainspace. If there are no better sources than this, then I'm afraid it should probably go to AfD. Let's see if other editors will be able to find anything. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no financial COI here. When In Manila does not pay me nor any of its writers. We all work on a volunteer basis. This is no different than a Red Cross volunteer helping the Red Cross get coverage for something they did. So the Inquirer Libre piece was not written by the subject (because I'm a volunteer) and not paid for by the subject. Interaksyon is the online arm of one of the three major television networks in the Philippines (TV5). The article was specifically about them trending on Twitter (as evidenced by the title) not general coverage of the awards ceremony. Facebook is a perfectly reliable source about When In Manila because they are talking about themselves (self-published sources are fine when used to cite non-controversial information about the subject, as per WP:SELFPUB), although I agree it doesn't add to notability. The Philippine Star piece mentions the When In Manila founder for the Online Media Category, because those awards are given to people not organizations, so he was representing When In Manila. While that isn't the smoking gun of notability, it isn't nothing either, as each awardee got about equal treatment in the article. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, not financial COI then, but still COI. While you managed to convince me about Xander Angeles above, I'm still not convinced by these sources. I've started an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When In Manila, which you are welcome to contribute to. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like you to respond on the AfD page to my statement regarding whether those awards are "well-known and independent," please. I've provided numerous press citations covering those awards, and there's more where that came from. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A bot producing lua data

About this at VPT and this at LUA requests. Over at the preproject talkpage [Template:RELC list] Template:Page reports, I discuss with @Werieth: (bot programmer) the setup. The bot has many options, and will be very generic. One topic is the Meta-Report: the bot writing in wiki the job results ("This page was produced at 08:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)~ by User:ExampleBot; 1234 pages"). I have concluded (by your suggestion) that we better write that meta-report in a Lua data page. I'd like to invite you to help setting up these datapage(s). The bot programmer has noted that he can produce Lua data output. I can add: at the moment his focus is on internal bot programming, discussion rate about wiki interaction is low. See you there. -DePiep (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The template & task force name has changed into "Page reports". Pages are moved. -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Lua help

This is a quick question regarding Module:Video game reviews/testcases. Do you know how to use Module:Category handler; I am trying to add Category:Empty templates on articles. The category correctly shows on the page with the empty template, as seen here Module talk:Video game reviews/testcases, but is not added to the category page. I am wanting it to be a hidden category, so easy cleanup can be done. So if you are unsure about this I will take it to the lua help page.—CKY2250 ταικ 03:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If the category displays on the page but the page doesn't turn up at the category page, then it usually means that the update is being held up in the job queue. I made a null edit to Module:Video game reviews/testcases, and it's now showing up in the category correctly. To make the category hidden you just need some code on the category page. I'll go and add it in a second. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! b(^_^)d —CKY2250 ταικ 04:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, it looks like you got the hidden category sorted. Nice. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
If you build them, they will come. Should I add this type of system Category:Empty templates on articles to other templates I touch in the future? I was able to successfully snatch 2 empty templates that are worth looking into fixing.—CKY2250 ταικ 20:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. That sounds like the kind of thing you should get consensus for before going ahead with, though, so I would post on the talk pages of the templates you are thinking of converting first. Also, you should probably filter that category by namespace, so that only actual articles are included in the category. And I would avoid outputting the text "empty template" into articles - that's not something that readers need to see. :) I would just output the category, so that there is no visible effect on the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI

This change to the CSD helper script has broken Twinkle and Hotcat for me. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you using a non-standard version of Hotcat or Twinkle? I thought that they were loaded from gadgets in the MediaWiki namespace, not from Ale jrb's scripts. At any rate, I'm probably not the person to ask, unless you're absolutely sure it was that edit which broke the scripts. Perhaps you could post a message in the VPT thread? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm using the Gadget verion of both of them. I have checked every script I use, and only that was changed this day. After I removed the CSD helper script both of them came back. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I reverted one of my edits to Ale jrb's scripts. Could you try and use Hotcat and Twinkle again and report back on your results? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
That didn't solve it. Both of them down. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, and I've now reverted the other one. Does that help? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It needed a little time, but both work now. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, sounds like the scripts are treading on each others' toes. I'll have to leave this one to people who know JavaScript better than me, I'm afraid. I'll leave the edits reverted for now. Thanks for letting me know about the problems. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Re-licensing your contributions to Module:Infobox and Module:HtmlBuilder

Hello Mr. Stradivarius,

I'm working on the upcoming Capiunto MediaWiki extension for Wikimedia Deutschland. The extension is supposed to provide a Lua (Scribunto) Infobox module on all Wikimedia wikis in a consistent way, similar to the Module:Infobox on the English Wikipedia. As a base for this new extension we plan to use the already mentioned Module:Infobox. Because of this we kindly ask you to give us the permission to reuse your contributions to the modules Infobox and HtmlBuilder under the GNU General Public License v2 or newer (GPL v2+). That makes reusing the code easier for us and matches the license of the rest of the extension. To give us the permission to reuse the mentioned code under the GPL v2+, just reply to this message in an unambiguous manner. The diff in which you approved the code reuse under the GPL v2+ will be noted within the extension. Cheers, and thanks for your work - Hoo man (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you have my permission. I hereby release my contributions to Module:Infobox and Module:HtmlBuilder under the GNU General Public License v2 or newer. Thank you for your work on this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
@Hoo man: Also, I'd be interested in working with you on the extension. The code for Module:Infobox is a bit messy, and it could do with tidying up. And also, there are other features that need to be added: {{infobox3cols}} should be supported, and there have been calls at Template talk:Infobox to allow different styles for odd/even rows. And perhaps most importantly, the current structure of Module:Infobox is not ideal at all for people converting individual infoboxes to Lua. In this case, having parameters n1, n2, n3 etc. just gets in the way. If we're going to roll this out on all wikis, then we should try and have something that addresses these issues. Also, Frietjes and Jackmcbarn, perhaps you would be interested in this? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
even and odd row styles for label/data fields would be a very nice feature for converting {{infobox video game}}, and even and odd header styles would be a nice feature for cleaning up {{Infobox baseball biography}}/{{Infobox MLB player}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do with it. I can't find a working git repo, though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the permissions to reuse your contributions. I will inform you by the time the extension passed initial code review and is ready to be installed. You will be able to clone the extension from https://git.wikimedia.org/git/mediawiki/extensions/Capiunto.git then. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a cascade-protected problem for the templates that are redirected from a shortcut. I believe these two are the only ones. Could you change them for me. Thanks —CKY2250 ταικ 20:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no can do. Those templates are used in MediaWiki:Protect-text, and templates transcluded in the MediaWiki namespace can't be reduced to template protection. Of course, you're free to work on the template sandboxes and request edits to them if you want. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Well then it is confusing with the non-redirect page "Main script page" having template protection and the redirect being full.—CKY2250 ταικ 22:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Yep, agreed - I already changed it back to full protection. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I saw the change after posting here. Thanks for the confusion fix. I have also made the request on the talk page. So if you would like to look and see if it could be added.—CKY2250 ταικ 22:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Module:Unbulleted list

would it be possible to add basic unordered list support to this module? I would like to replace the html in the top image caption in Billiard ball, and image captions do not support wiki list markup. I believe all you would need to do is add bulleted = makeWrapper( 'bulleted' ) or unordered = makeWrapper( 'unordered' ) or whatever to call it, and then have that option not add any classes. I temporarily created template:bulleted list/module:bulleted list and there is also the underused template:ulist, which might be a better home for it. once this is available, we can clean up more of Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/012 dump. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This shouldn't be too hard - I'll take a look at it later. I think we need a better name than Module:Unbulleted list, though. Maybe we could call it Module:List, or is that too generic? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I think what we need to do is create a new module, maybe called Module:List, that makes the following kinds of lists: unordered, plainlist, hlist, and ordered. I did think about including definition lists, but this would require us to rethink the parameter scheme, which I don't think is ideal. I also briefly thought of the idea of supporting nesting, but perhaps it would be best to support basic features for now and leaving nesting and definition lists for a different module. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
@Frietjes: I have now created Module:List, and it should be working with the four kinds of lists I mentioned above. Have a play around, see what you think, and let me know if there are any bugs you find or any features that you would like added. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thank you! the only additional features I can think of at the moment would be for horizontal ordered lists, and for the ability to set the 'type' and 'start' value for the ordered lists. as far as I can tell, 'start' can be defined by either using start= within the <ol> or with 'value' in the first <li>. I will see about re-purposing {{ulist}} and {{olist}}. thank you again. Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
@Frietjes: Your suggested features are now in the module. We're probably ready to switch {{unbulleted list}} and {{hlist}} over to the new module - I just have to get some test cases working first. Having {{ulist}} as a redirect to {{unbulleted list}} and {{olist}} as a redirect to {{ordered list}} would be very nice indeed. Let me know your progress on that front. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I should probably take back the part about being ready. I just learned of the existence of the list-style-type CSS property, which we have to have to maintain backwards compatibility with {{ordered list}}. I've added support for it and made the module use HtmlBuilder as well, which means that the code is quite a lot different now. We should probably check that everything still works before doing anything drastic. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, check out Module:Random. Now we can make lists those of all random as well. ;) (refresh) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I updated template:ordered list, which has relatively few transclusions, and all seems to be working fine, both with list-style-type and type. I agree that {{olist}} is a natural redirect to {{ordered list}} and corresponds with <ol>, but I'm not as sure about {{ulist}} since the default <ul> is not the same as {{unbulleted list}}. thank you again. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
could you delete Module:Bulleted list? I don't think db-author works with modules :) Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. And you're right about ulist - unordered list is the best fit. I think I was just being a bit absent-minded there. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

I seem to have a copyright related issue which I probably need an admin's help with. Last night I was bored out of life and so wrote a funny piece of essay in my user sandbox.

Today, User:FleetCommand popped up on my messenger. I told him about it; he laughed. I gave him the link and suddenly he became serious. He said my parody is using names used in a copyright-protected work of art and so it is fair use; that means I am not allowed to have it in Wikipedia unless in compliance with WP:NFCC.

I, of course, thought what I wrote there does not fall within threshold of originality (e.g. any fictional character can love apples without infringing upon the copyright of the previous apple-loving ones) and besides, since they are only brief references with attribution, they are not plagiarism. I don't think it is even de minimis, let alone fair-use. But if what he says is true, maybe you should hide that revision.

What do you think?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that there are strong protections for parody of this type under copyright law, but then again you should probably ask someone who knows what they are talking about more than I do. :) How about asking at WT:NFCC or somewhere similar? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello again. I think there a danger of streisand effect with involving WP:NFCR, so I say if you feel even slightly uncomfortable with the page, please do feel free to nuke it. I wouldn't mind. I might try other courses of finding out for myself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Environmental Defense Fund Proposed Edits

Mr. Stradivarius, as the other member of the debate over the proposed edits, I would also like to contribute to the editing process since I am opposed to the Mr. Strauss' edits. I'm not exactly sure how this process works, but I'd be happy to provide you with the sources that are used in the current edit as well as additional sources, and could answer any questions you may have on the topic.88.218.9.122 (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. By being "the other member of the debate", do you mean that you have a conflict of interest here? If so, you should stick to editing the talk page, and propose your edits using the {{request edit}} template. (Instructions for the template are here.) A volunteer (maybe me, maybe someone else) will come along and answer the edit request after you have left the template there. If you don't have a conflict of interest, you can be bold and edit the article directly, as long as you pay attention to our content policies of verifiability and neutral point of view. I don't really have much interest in the article myself; I was just dealing with the backlog of edit requests. Hope this helps - let me know if you have any more questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that I have a conflict of interest, but I'm not sure if that term has a strict definition in the wiki-world. I'm the one who made the original edit that Mr. Strauss, a member of the organization described in the article, objected to. I do not agree with his changes and just wanted to see how else I could contribute to the process that involved a 3rd party editor, such as yourself. I can see why you have little interest in the article, though, since it's not really an important (or particularly interesting) topic in the great world of information. Do you suggest that I leave things as they are and see what becomes of it, since my edits are currently in place? Take care.88.218.44.104 (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The best thing would be to try to come to an agreement with Mr. Strauss on the talk page. Wikipedia works by consensus, so important thing (from a Wikipedia policy point of view) is what the consensus between editors is, not what is actually on the page now. (Although again, the content must conform to the content policies that I mentioned above.) If you have a disagreement that you can't resolve through discussion, then you can ask for a third opinion or try some other form of dispute resolution. Hope this helps. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Module:Redirect new feature

I finally got around writing a feature for Module:Redirect that replaces all the redirects in a block of text; it's at Module:Redirect/sandbox. You protected the module in the meanwhile, so it needs an admin edit to go live - besides, I'd appreciate if you looked it over, because I modularized the existing 'main' function also so that I could reuse part of it, so there's a chance I broke something that doesn't show up on the unit tests. Speaking of unit tests... nothing, not even Module:convert/tester (which gets an expandTemplate error), can figure out what are wrong with these. Wnt (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

@Wnt: sorry for the delay in getting round to this. I've re-jigged the code a bit so that you don't have to have a frame object available all the time; if you're calling Module:Redirect from another module, then that saves you from having to take another trip through the bits of the parser necessary to detect template arguments. I've also made the top-level variables local, as this means that they don't have to be stored in the globals table, and you get an ever-so-slight performance gain. (Local variables are quicker than table lookups, although table lookups in Lua are still reallyreallyfast.)

The reason why the unit tests are failing for the block function is that when nowiki tags are preprocessed in Lua, they get converted to strip markers. (Same with ref tags, gallery tags, and a few others.) MediaWiki needs the strip markers to be unique so that it knows which code to insert back in which place after the wikitext is returned from Scribunto. This means that even if you put preprocessed nowiki tags around the exact same text, you will get a different strip marker every time, and because you have different code every time your unit tests will always fail. To get the unit tests to work, you either need to test the text before it gets nowiki'd, or you can use mw.text.nowiki rather than nowiki tags and write the unit tests with HTML entities.

It's up to you if you want to go through the extra effort it would take to get some working unit tests for the block function, but in any case, take a look through my changes to the sandbox and see if you like them. If everything seems ok, I'll update the module. And the main function seems to be working just fine. :)

Also, while I'm thinking about it, would you like me to make you a template editor? You seem like an ideal candidate. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump again

Mr. Stradivarius

1. On 26 of October, you gave a clear ultimatum to AndyTheGrump expressly laying down the consequence of being banned if he continues “letting loose with invective”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndyTheGrump&diff=578773690&oldid=578773223

2. Reference is made to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/AndyTheGrump&offset=&limit=500&target=AndyTheGrump
3. I am bringing this to your attention as I opted not to address his violations directly with him. I have had no interactions with AndyTheGrump since reporting his behavior, like many editors have done, in an ANI report on 26 October 2013. However, I am concerned that he, out of thousands of established WP editors, repeatedly displays a pattern that is inconsistent with WP principles which includes letting loose with invective, and that should be stopped permanently. He is willfully choosing to continue to repeatedly and selectively violate WP rules. I will give you the opportunity to investigate his violations, but I will bring to your attention one flagrant violation of WP:NPA:
- On 20:35, 22 November 2013, User talk:AndyTheGrump flagrantly defied your ultimatum to ban him, and let loose with invective saying “fuck off” to an “apparent” vandal (I apologize if the user that AndyTheGrump attacked was not a vandal). This is never acceptable. This is not good for Wikipedia’s image.

REFERENCES:

- 20:35, 22 November 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+299)‎ . . User talk:AndyTheGrump ‎ (Undid revision 582864421 by 172.13.17.157 (talk) fuck off) (current)

and

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndyTheGrump&action=history
4. This was in connection with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndyTheGrump&diff=prev&oldid=582865217

I now leave this matter to your discretion. Have a good day. Worldedixor (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Saying "fuck off" was not the best response. But you have to also look at the diff that prompted it; that's really nasty behaviour from the IP, and easily tops Andy's response in terms of incivility even though the IP didn't use any swearwords. I would feel really petty for blocking Andy over that. Also, next time, you should bring this up with Andy first to try and resolve the issues, and if that doesn't work you should start another ANI discussion. We resolve things by dialogue first before we resort to blocks, and coming to me directly rather than going to ANI could seem to some like admin shopping, although I'm sure that wasn't your intention. (That, and I promised Drmies that I would get consensus before giving any more civility blocks to established users.) Also, here's a ping for Andy, because it only seems right to notify him that his behaviour is being discussed. Hope this helps. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
If Worldedixor wants "no interactions", that is fine by me. How about starting by not following my every edit... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Webserver directory index

Perhaps you remember answering an editprotected request regarding a weird situation at Talk:Webserver directory index last month. In case you're curious and still care about the issue, I've explained in that thread what was going on. Nyttend (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Speech production and Speech error pages

Hello, I've noticed you are a rather active person in the linguistic topics and I would like to request your help. I am a student of the University of Alberta and I have been given an assignment to modify some wiki articles for my Psychology of Language class. I have chosen to make additions and revisions to the speech production page as well as the speech error page. I have not submitted any changes to either page itself thus far however I am working on my revisions in my sandbox. What I am asking of you, if you wouldn't mind, is for you to keep an eye on my progress and make suggestions that might improve my work. The Professor of the course, Paula Marentette, is also keeping an eye on my progress and has made some comments as well, but your experience with the wiki community would be beneficial to helping me make an acceptable revision to my chosen articles.
Thank you,
Jenaya (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jenaya! Yes, I'll be happy to give you some feedback on how you're doing. Number one, it is fine to be bold and just update the article. Your changes could be undone if someone thinks that they aren't an improvement to the page, but if you are making an honest effort to improve things, and you cite your sources properly, then that is actually quite unlikely. Updating the article directly also reduces the chance of wasted work - other editors might not know that you are working on this, and they may change things in the article that you were fixing in your sandbox. Your sandbox can be a better choice if you have material that you don't think is ready for the article yet, but be aware that your work doesn't have to be perfect for it to go in the article. Also, you will probably benefit from looking at the beginner's guide to referencing, and you should also have a read through the verifiability policy. Wikipedia prefers citations much more often than academic writing does. Hope this helps, and let me know if you have any more questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thank you very much! I have made my first major edit to the speech production page, hopefully it all goes over well! Jenaya (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Note

Regarding this, I may have made an error in judgment with my pings. I simply looked at the top contributors to the permission request page and notified those users, without realizing that would include a lot of individuals who had trouble being granted the right. Probably not the best way to get a balanced discussion going. Sorry for any negativity that gets tossed your way as a result of my stupidity. equazcion → 13:35, 27 Nov 2013 (UTC)

It's ok, it kind of comes with the job. Maybe I should ask for a pay raise. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
You can see why I wasn't so eager to take it myself :) equazcion → 13:54, 27 Nov 2013 (UTC)
It's not that bad, really. If you spend all day every day on ANI or AE I can see how you would get a lot of irate feedback, but if you keep doing what you're doing and only use the tools occasionally, you aren't going to get much flak for it. And when you do need to use the tools in your everyday editing, it will be really convenient not to have someone else to do your work for you. I still think that you should run, by the way, and I still think you would have a very high chance of passing. I haven't been wrong about a nominee yet, and the offer of a nomination is still open - just let me know when you're ready. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I still doubt I would go for it but I'll keep the offer in mind. equazcion → 14:18, 27 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Stradivarius.

I am contacting you from St. Louis Public Library. I'm having a problem getting the ISBN url to work on the following page. Can you share with me what you were able to provide to have the search work successfully?

Thanks so much. Ljoneill13 (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC) ljoneill13 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources
Sorry for getting back to you a little late. This seems to have already been fixed, and the site was working for me when I tried it a moment ago. Are you still having any problems with this? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Football league module

Hi,

You said you might give building something in Lua to handle football tables a shot. Did you try it?

Thanks TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I started it, but it's not done yet - the code is at Module:League table. It might take me a little while yet, but when it is done it should be easy to use with many different sports, not just football. I'll let you know when I have something that I can actually show you. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Ambox – teases template editors

Thanks for the quick grant of the template editor user right. But when I went to edit the pink-padlocked {{Ambox}}, it just told me, "This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following page, which is protected with the "cascading" option: Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items". So I guess it isn't really useful to pink-padlock pages that transclude that page, as long as it remains red-locked. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You do have a point there. While {{ambox}} itself could be edited by template editors, Module:Message box can't as it has transclusions in the MediaWiki namespace. There isn't really much point in allowing people to edit {{ambox}} when that particular page doesn't really do anything. Do you think it would be best to just full-protect all of them again? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd just create a new template notice for use on template documentation pages where this is the case. Something like "This template consists predominately of a module, or another template, that is cascade-protected. Its functionality can effectively only be altered by administrators." equazcion → 01:02, 10 Dec 2013 (UTC)
I can click "edit" to edit the page, but when I do, it just shows me View source for Template:Ambox and I cannot preview or save. So yes, unless removed per Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#Removing individual templates I would just red-lock it to avoid confusing or annoying template editors. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Note that it looks like {{ambox}} itself is within the cascade, not just Module:Message box. I wonder if there's a way to change the lock color based on detecting cascade protection. Is there any magic word or module function that could detect that? equazcion → 01:46, 10 Dec 2013 (UTC)
Also, the edit tab for pages falling within a cascade protect still reads "edit", instead of "view source" like other pages with direct protection have. The protection is therefore a surprise on attempting an edit. I wonder if that can be fixed as well. equazcion → 01:49, 10 Dec 2013 (UTC)
No, there isn't any magic word for detecting cascade protection, although that would be very useful. (I have been wanting something like this for Module:Protected edit request as well.) Both that and the edit/view source problem would need fixes to MediaWiki. There might be quite a good chance that they would be implemented, though, so it can't hurt to ask. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you review a NAC?

Hi there. How do you do? I was wondering if you could review a NAC for me: This discussion was listed at WP:ANRFC a couple of weeks ago by another users, and was NAC-closed today as "no consensus". I wouldn't be bothered much by that outcome, if not another user had tried to close the same discussion two days ago as "delete" but reverted the closure once they realized that "WP:NACD prohibits me from closing this discussion as the result is deletion, which I cannot act upon". I realize that the delete closure was more of a WP:SUPERVOTE, but on the other hand it looks like the other closer was merely counting votes. I believe I am too WP:INVOLVED in this one to revert the closure, what do you think about it? Mentoz86 (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What I would do is this: first ask the closer on their talk page if they would be willing to revert the close. This is always a good idea, as many users are willing to act on reasonable criticisms of their closes, and it is a lot more congenial than just reverting their close. It would also be worth pointing out that WP:NACD says that non-admins should avoid closing discussions that are close calls or are controversial. If the closer isn't willing to self-revert, I would then take it to WP:DRV. This might be overkill, as in the vast majority of cases like this the close gets overturned at DRV. However, for reviews of closes like this it is best to make sure that the reviewer is someone who all the participants would view not to be biased. I could appear slightly biased because some might see our interaction here as something similar to canvassing, and also because I nominated you at RfA. I don't think I would be biased in reviewing the close, but perceptions are important. :) Hope this helps. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I thought I tried to be neutral in my approach, to prevent it look like canvassing, but I agree on your reasoning. Thanks for your feedback, I've now left a message for the closer. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Need help dealing with a Microsoft engineer

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius

How do you do?

A Microsoft UX designer, Mathias Wendlinger, has contacted me over the email, asking for negotiation about edit #584210006 which I previously reverted. (Well, his edit wasn't exactly resume material for a UX designer.) So, I think I am going to need a copy of File:Xbox Music W8 logo.jpg and File:Xbox Music everywhere.png as well as their description pages for reference. Do you think you can arrange that?

I have asked him not to communicate with me over email anymore and reply in my talk page only, because copyright issues are best solved with transparency in mind. Surely, the foundation wouldn't want a lawsuit from Microsoft on the grounds that I mistreated their employee, does it?

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi CL. Unfortunately the files are both on Commons, and I don't have any superpowers over there so I can't get them for you. I did manage to get made an admin on mediawiki.org and on the test wiki, but I doubt they would let me adminstrate Commons with my paltry amount of experience there. You could try asking over at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, maybe? And yes, a lawsuit from Microsoft would be suboptimal. :) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks. To summarize: Ouch! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Module:Math

Hi! I noticed you made this edit [6] a few hours ago. Is it possible that the code refactor broke something? I am noticing that Module:Infobox road/length is now broken, and no longer displays anything in any of the 10,000+ transclusions of Template:Infobox road. --Rschen7754 03:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say that it is more than possible - in fact, I would peg it right up there at "certain". :) I've reverted for now, and I'll try and work out the scale of the problem. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! --Rschen7754 04:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It was the precision_format function that was causing the problem. Previously you could only get at that function by passing it a frame object, or in the case of this module, a fake frame object. But because I switched Module:Math to use Module:Arguments, the module can now recognise that it's fake, and assumes that the arguments are being passed directly in as a table. So changing {args={x, y, z}} to just {x, y, z} would fix the problem. But even better would be to pass it to the new _precision_value function directly, which is what I have done in the sandbox. I'll have to go through and see if any other modules have used tricks like this before I switch back to the new version of Module:Math. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'll ping User:Happy5214 to let him know. --Rschen7754 04:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
There were only two modules where this was a problem, Module:Infobox road/length and Module:Infobox settlement, so I have updated them to use the new _precision_format function and reinstated the new version of Module:Math. Let me know if you notice any more problems. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks like something in your edits to Module:Math broke Template:Dallas weatherbox, and probably the underlying Template:Weather box in general; using TemplateSandbox to preview Template:Dallas weatherbox with an old version of Module:Math makes it work correctly. See also WP:VPT#Thorny template issue: Dallas weatherbox. Anomie⚔ 03:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Fixed now - thanks for letting me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Premier league table template

Hi. You are one of the editors involved in the Premier league table template at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121#Displaying a part of the table. The work is very close to the end and the template now loks like the one currently used at 2013–14 Premier League. I just wanted to see if you could take a look at what I did last night at Template:2013–14 Premier League table/sandbox so that the code looks okay. What I did was that previously there was "Qualified for champions league" on three rows (1,2 and 3) and the same for relegation, so now i wanted it to span over all these rows (as in 2013–14 Premier League) using the rows-parameter in the template used inside our template.

My idea was that when teams 1,2,3 are shown (for the first 3 teams in table) there should be a span over three rows and when the table should show teams 2-6 (for team on pos4) i wanted it to be a span over 2 rows. Hard to explain in writing. I used switches and ifeq for that. The result can be seen at User:Spudgfsh/sandbox. Please take a look at it and comment on the result. Then it is only to decide if we should highlight the team or not and then we should use it. Discussion about that on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Highlighting or bolding.

I would also like to thank you for all the work you have done with this table. Thank you!.QED237 (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

Barnstar archived to User:Mr. Stradivarius/Awards. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No problems, glad it helped. Thanks for the shiny barnstar. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr._Stradivarius/Archive_16&oldid=1147977547"