User talk:Pythoncoder/Archive 4

Archive 4: July 2019–December 2021

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 4#E._Michael_Jones

I had a bad feeling this would flare up again. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani Wikipedia - Followup

I thought you might be interested in doing following up on the Admin controversy at the Azerbaijani Wikipedia.

I was returning to the RFC to post more evidence of admin behavior, when I found the RFC been closed back on July 3. Closure.

An ~~Enwiki admin~~ (Winged Blades of Godric), myself, and an IP subsequently raised objections on the closer's talk page.

The closure is not remotely based on anything proposed in the RFC. (There certainly was no proposal to send someone to Azerbaycan.)
The closure frivolously dismisses a clear consensus as "mild support". (The global community consensus is especially overwhelming if you set aside the obvious opposes from the AzWiki admins themselves.)
Prior to closing, the closer was offered financial support from the Foundation to travel to Azerbaycan help the admins to behave better, which the closer clearly would not receive if the RFC were closed to desysop those admins. The closer had clear COI. The closer amazingly claims the travel benefits was not something of value, and therefore presumably would not constitute a COI. A COI, or even the appearance of COI, means they should have left the RFC to be closed by anyone else.
When the closer was asked is it true that do you know (m)any az-wiki admin(s), personally? If yes, were they involved in the incidents discussed over the RFC? If yes, do you see any conflict-of-interest? the closer closer respond and the last point, I have so many friends in azwiki.... The closer themselves upgraded "knowing" the abusive admins to a question&answer about the closer's "friends". The COI, or even the appearance of COI, means they should have left the RFC to be closed by anyone else.
When I noted that one of the problems with the admins was that they were operating as an off-wiki conspiracy club and that no consensus would ever support gathering those admins in a real-life-buddy-club as a fix, the closer says they will be conducting online meetings to address the problems. Which raises the obvious absurdity, why would we spending money to ship someone to Azerbaycan to conduct online meetings? The closer also plans to supply the abusive admins a officially-sanctioned clubhouse for conspiring. A Foundation-supplied private mailing list.
The closer said to Winged Blades of Godric I am not going to respond to any of your comments and what you ask means nothing to me, and they said to me Alsee, This is also my last comment for you. The closer refuses any further constructive discussion. Given a non-communicative closer, the only remaining option would be to open Meta a proposal to review and overturn the close. Although I haven't yet decided whether to take on that headache.

I don't know if you would want to make this connection, but I find it surprising (or perhaps not so surprising) that the Foundation would do something like this in the middle of the FRAMBAN mess. They offered the closer some sort of travel package, effectively to close against community consensus and prevent the community from removing admins found to be abusive based on a public examination of evidence. It's almost the same issue in reverse. Alsee (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating for the record that WBG is not an admin at this time. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Somehow I must have confused WBG with my recollection of someone else's RFA. Alsee (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DR under development

I think it would be worth noting that Yelyos made 22 edits since 5 July 2008, with zero edits in 2017 or 2018, then came back and requested re-sysop. Their userpage even now says they are retired. If this doesn't appear in the report, I'd probably feel compelled to make it a comment. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to project revival

Dear user, I, with Willbb234, are a attempting to revive the Wikiproject Requested Articles, of which you are a member. If you wish to be a part of our effort, feel free to add your signature in it's talk page. Best regards, Eni vak (speak) 16:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MacKeeper page edits

@Pythoncoder: hi! Sorry for the impression you got from these edits. I am not paid for this particular edits. However, I am working on MacKeeper. My edits are aimed to update an article with the information about the new release of MacKeeper 4.0 (as the article has information about other previous releases - MacKeeper 1,2 and 3.0). So I can't deny that I am receiving payments from the company on the regular basis, as employee.

If I am not mistaken, it's not banned by Wikipedia to make edits as a company representative. An I hope, it's ok to update product page with the new information (witout advertisement or link building) I tried to make them sound not like an advertisement (no call to install or compliments to the new version). However, if my edits should be updated to be more compliant, please, let me know.

Thank you!

Kris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikrikris (talk • contribs) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget or user script

Hi Pythoncoder,

Hope you are doing good. I'd like to ask you to help about user script, would you like to make user script for create WD property. You can use test.wikidata.org to make and test, you will get data from the link below. I was try to make Gadget but unfortunately I couldn’t. If you need any user rights on testwd please let me know. Please help. Thank you in advance! Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 08:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays

Interstellarity (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Yearly report

Your contributions have been good so far, but the Indian entry you claimed is still pending. (and if you can take some more to write, it'd be nice - damn year where collaborators seemed to vanish) igordebraga ≠ 16:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bit busy at the moment but will see what I can do this weekend. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyva

Hi Pythoncoder, i've seen that you declined my submission for Hyva eng page. Can you suggest me how I can improve the quality of the page?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucaColombo1990 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LucaColombo1990: Welcome to Wikipedia! Some of the language used in the draft (for example, "product portfolio" and "solutions") make the draft sound like an advertisement. Also, please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to determine if you have a conflict of interest (COI for short). For example, if you're employed by the company you're writing an article about, you have a COI. If you determine that you do have a COI, the "Plain and simple conflict of interest guide" will tell you what steps you should take next. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.

Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.

All the best,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird bug in vote symbols

At Special:Permalink/939054732#Statement by Newimpartial, there's a bold comment — (and in somea cases wasn't even an independent source, reveiwing stuff from their own company) — that appears to be setting off the voteSymbols script, attempting to GET https://en.wikipedia.org/w/undefined and inserting an empty space, as there's obviously no image returned. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed this bug too with other words from time to time (it happens with the word filter). I still can’t figure out why this is happening, probably because I didn’t write most of the code. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look just now, I think I've traced it. Basically, at the bottom, it looks ip lowerNoPunct(j[k]) in the la array, then checks if the result (l) is defined. The problem is that, when using bracket notation (var l=la[lowerNoPunct(j[k])];), something like la['filter'] returns the native js code filter. Likewise for some in the example I found. Aside from rewriting the whole thing, if you change the undefined check (l!==undefined) to ensure it looks up a number (l!==undefined && typeof l === 'number'), it should work. Indeed, you could probably just do the typeof check. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your help! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read

You are now at the other things section at Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020. Koridas (Speak) 06:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also tag the AFD page with Template:Humour or else we might find your edits as disruptive. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Were those categories meant to be speedied?

Because I decided to G7 them when I got a message on my talk page. Were the G2 templates meant to be April Fools jokes? OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OcelotCreeper: The G2s were serious. They were clogging up a database report: Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder: Then can you remove the speedy deletion stuff from the April Fools page. It legitimately made me think it was all just a joke (I'm Asking you to remove them so you can specifically say in the edit summary that by adding the categories to the article, it made it look like a joke to the author). OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OcelotCreeper: You should be able to make the edit yourself, since you’ve had your account for >4 days and made >10 edits. Be bold! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

		*The Signpost* Barnstar**
		for an outstanding article in the March 2020 issue

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of H:CA

Hello, Pythoncoder,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Hughesdarren and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged H:CA for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. You may find our guide for writing quality articles to be extremely informative.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hughesdarren: It looks like an IP replaced the redirect with a link to a Phabricator page. I have reverted it to the redirect I created. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop improvements prototype

Hello, Pythoncoder!

		Exploration of the Unknown
		I hereby award you the Exploration of the Unknown award! You are being recognized for your courage and willingness to test a feature, gadget, or tool in development and for the constructive feedback you provided.

Thanks for taking the time to participate in the user feedback round for our desktop improvements prototype. This feedback is super valuable to us and is currently being used to determine our next steps. We have published a report gathering the main takeaways from the feedback and highlighting the changes we’ll make based on this feedback. Please take a look and give us your thoughts on the talk page of the report. To learn more about the project overall and the other features we’re planning on building in the future, check out the main project page.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking

Will you be ready with the Discussion report before midnight tonight (NY time)? I'm running behind, but every little bit helps.

Your contributions are very much appreciated.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RedWarn - important info to get back up and running

Hey! Thanks for testing RedWarn. This is an important message to notify you that effective immediately, you need to change your common.js. This is due to my usurp request to change my username from an alias, JamesHSmith6789, to a more identifiable one, Ed6767 being accepted.

To do this, edit your config.js and remove the existing RedWarn script line and replace it with this one:

importScript("User:Ed6767/redwarn.js");

Click here to edit your common.js

And, here's another reminder to please, please, leave feedback and report all bugs on the talk page. By reporting bugs, you can help get them fixed by the next daily release.

Also, if you're interested in live discussion regarding the development and help with using RedWarn, why not join our new Discord server. It's easy to sign up and you can get help and chat with other RedWarn users.

Again, thank you so much for being willing to beta test RedWarn! I really appreciate it. Ed6767 (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Ed6767 about RedWarn

Hello RedWarn tester! I hate to reitterate, but thank you so much for being willing to test RedWarn, I really appreciate it.

In the past few updates, I have added AIV (admin) reporting, a preferences panel, themes, customisation options and made many, many bug fixes and added many features based on your suggestions and feedback.

Unfortunately, recently feedback has run dry.

Even if you do not use RedWarn at the moment, or you do (tysm), I would greatly appreciate feedback of any kind. While I go round Twinkle users, sounding like that broadband salesperson in the mall that nobody ever wants to speak to, I'd like some updated feedback from recent and current users.

Any sort of feedback below would be greately appreciated!

Your first impressions when you tried RedWarn?
How have you used RedWarn as time has gone on?
Would you value customisation features, such as macros or shortcuts, such as adding your own quick revert reasons so the tool can fit your exact editing practices?
Any suggestions for how I could promote the tool to a wider audience?
Would you appreciate a more developed and thorough user guide?
Any theme suggestions?
Anything you'd like changing?
Something you've always wanted to see in an anti-vandal tool? (I might add it!)
RedWarn app?
A way to introduce Recent Changes patrol to new users to make using RedWarn or other tools less daunting?
Any bugs, gripes, or things that just really annoy you about RedWarn?

Click the button below to begin a new section on the talk page

Leave Feedback

My goal is to create the most user friendly moderation tool, and that's why I need your feedback to help make this truely the most favorable anti-vandal tool. While we will never elliminate vandalism on this site, we can get closer to fighting it quickly and easily.

Many thanks for your continued support. Ed6767 (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not wish to get these feedback reminders, let me know on my talk page.

Curly quotes

Unaware of your effort last year, I became the latest to fight windmills on this issue. Cheers. --bender235 (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your service. We’ll win this battle one of these days, I just know it. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Pythoncoder, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking whether the discussion report is ready

for tomorrow's Signpost. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that the article is unfinished, especialy the "In brief" part. Would you prefer that I just delete the "In brief" part or the whole article. Will email. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pythoncoder. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

@Smallbones: Apologies for the late reply but I have real-life commitments this weekend and cannot complete my article. Sorry—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Border Incident ( horse)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Border Incident ( horse). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 7#Border Incident ( horse) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote

Dear Pythoncoder,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Do wikiphedolic test still exist. Tbiw (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tbiw, see WP:WHT for the standard test, WP:LEGACYTEST for the legacy test, WP:MODERNTEST for the modern test, and User:Pythoncoder/test for other random versions. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Game of War screenshot.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Game of War screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Dear Wikipedians and contributors, the open source Wikipedia review tool, previously "WikiLoop Battlefield" has completed its name vote and is announcing its new name: WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Read the full story on the program page on Meta-wiki, learn about ways to support this tool, and find out what future developments are coming for this tool.

Thank you to everyone who took part in the vote!

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Un-struck

I have reverted your striking as obviously counter-productive: it's a shit vote that would have had no impact whatsoever if it were ignored like it should have been, but now is a locus of inane drama. If you disagree with this action, I invite you to write criticisms, insults, or rude comments on my talk-page, where they will remain for one year (and then be archived). --JBL (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who raised the concern in the first place, I say let's forget about this. I still believe what I wrote, but it seems to have really upset the voter, and it's not worth having a huge argument about it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I didn't expect it to be that big a deal but it seems I ended up being very wrong about that. Obviously the vote is stupid but I don't care enough about it staying struck to warrant adding more fuel to this ridiculous drama fire. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Hi Pythoncoder/Archive 4,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

Nomination for merging of Template:User page mbox

Template:User page mbox has been nominated for merging with Template:User page. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:User talk page mbox

Template:User talk page mbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: You didn't do anything, but everyone needs a little trout to wake them up! 108.31.15.173 (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Bumpf[reply]

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

HI Pythoncoder/Archive 4,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Well, I love the trout thing, never seen it before! You accepted a pending revision for xQc, but the editor changed the fact that he was the 29th most followed active streamer on Twitch in October to 16th (I don't know if that is true for November or not), and they used Wikipedia as a reference in their edit summary. I reverted the change, but just thought I should let you know! Pbrks (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Pythoncoder,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Request on 18:23:45, 17 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Michal Z 92

Michal Z 92 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:TEPLATOR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Pythoncoder,

recently my submission of TEPLATOR article was declined. In the description you said, that it need to have more independent reviews. It is completely new idea so right now it doesn't have much reviews. I presumed that scientific papers (written by the team of TEPLATOR, obviously), which were peer-reviewed are enough for publishing in wikipedia, also one of the references is an official IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) published document.

Browsing through the wikipedia I found out there is several similar articles about new reactors for example HTR-PM or BN-800.

Can you please assist me with further edits to the article? What else is needed to be published? I would add more reviews but like I said since the idea is very new it is not possible now.

Thank you for your help,

Michal

Michal Z 92 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Z 92: I did not write the comment about needing more references. It was written by another editor 3 months ago. Since then, I can see that you have added more references. Thank you for doing that.

My objection to your draft was that it contained language with a promotional or advertisement-like tone. The second sentence calls the technology "innovative", which makes the page sound more like an advertisement than a neutral article. Similarly, the "Target application" reads like a sales pitch. (Examples of promotional sentences: "It will replace the out-dated conventional heating plants based on fossil fuels.", "TEPLATOR solutions are especially suitable for...")

Another recommendation I have is to add another sentence at the beginning of the article that explains in a non-technical way what the article is about. A good starting point is "TEPLATOR is..."

Note: if you submit this draft again, it will probably be reviewed by another editor who may have additional advice on how to improve the article. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about your voting symbols script

I hear you are very trusworthy, so I came here to ask you, where did you find your "speedy merge" and "speedy redirect" symbols? JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 00:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JJPMaster: I created them myself, specifically for the script. I took the original symbols (example: File:Symbol merge vote.svg), then changed the "light" background color to be the light-black color from File:Symbol speedy delete vote.svg. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teamwork and The Signpost

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thank you for being a part of The Signpost in 2020! DTM (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I did that much for the ’Post this year, but thanks, I guess? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted!

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

This is for rickrolling me like I'm a damn fool. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 12:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasses

I'm normally not at all a fan of FOOLS AfDs, but this one was great! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For your clear-eyed sense of humor. {{u\|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2021! I hope you have a good rest of the year. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 00:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of a joke AfD you created for April Fools' 2021

Hi, I'm letting you know that I've nominated a joke AfD nomination you created for deletion, as it didn't get significant participation on April Fools'. You can participate in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Unfunny AfDs from April Fools 2021. Thanks you. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Iburdiss (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pythoncoder. I am unsure why my article got declined. Please tell me why.

Thanks.

@Iburdiss: Click on this link WP:NBIO and read the "basic criteria" section. One thing the article needs is references to independent, reliable, secondary sources. See WP:REFB for info on how to add references. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

SadInAShed has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}.

SadInAShed (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Random IP is vandalising

Hi there,

I didn't know where to turn seeing as a random IP is vandalising pages of popular balkan singers.

I saw that you reverted the changes they made on the Mile Kitic page, but they also did it on the Mitar Miric page which I've now reverted.

They keep editing to put Republika Srpska as these singers birthplaces when these singers were in fact born in the Socialist republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (PR Bosnia and Herzegovina, as I have been reverting it back to).

This person is obviously vandalising as you have noted. Is it possible to get their IP banned or temporarily banned? I'm not sure where to turn as I use Wikipedia sporadically to uphold any Balkan pages that have people spreading misinformation.

Thanks EthanHunt1010 (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EthanHunt1010: It appears this IP has only made two POV pushing edits so far, which is not grounds for a block. If you see more edits like this, revert them and post a warning on their talk page. If this disruptive editing continues, you may want to report them at WP:ANI. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for letting me know. I was unsure of the process for doing so. I will heed your advice. EthanHunt1010 (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Pythoncoder:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.[reply]

Edit Request Tool

Hello, I renamed my script Edit Request Closer to Edit Request Tool a while ago and am now deleting the old page. If you wish to continue to use the script. Please change the link in your common.js to the following:

importScript('User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool]]

Thanks, Terasail ^[✉️] 21:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators and help needed

Hi, if you are active on Wikipedia and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large Schools Project, please let us know here. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sent to project members 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages here.

Wikipediholism test

Hiii, on you revert here. It is true... see Template:Ambox globe current red, although, the question might've been phrased in a weird way (maybe something mentioning UTC time might've been better). Anyways, I would like your opinion on the inclusion of the question, as it's really possible that like no one knows that the globe rotates anyways. Justi yaya 05:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I now see that it is true, I still think it’s a bit too obscure and not useful for the test. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, thanks! Justi yaya 16:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

Corrosive RfA atmosphere
The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
Level of scrutiny
Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
Standards needed to pass keep rising
It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
Too few candidates
There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
"No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
Admin permissions and unbundling
There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
RfA should not be the only road to adminship
Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G13

Hi Pythoncoder, I've noticed that you have been tagging some user subpages marked with {{Userspace draft}} for deletion using {{db-afc}}. Please note that WP:G13 only applies to userspace if it is tagged with {{AFC submission}} or contains article wizard placeholder text only. WP:ABANDON#Stale userspace drafts suggests how to handle the type of drafts you have been tagging. Thank you. ✗plicit 02:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks for the correction. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: BECAUSE I’M BORED 85.99.20.159 (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here

Have another notification--85.99.20.159 (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your Arbitration Committee Elections 2021 Voter Guide

Hello Pythoncoder, I would like to thank you for publishing and providing your voter guide for Arbitration Committee Elections 2021 at User:Pythoncoder/ACE/2021. It has been very helpful and useful to me in learning about the pros & cons of all the different candidates with respect to their suitability for Arbitration Committee. It had proper detailed analysis and rationale on every candidate and helped me in voting informatively. Thanks. TheGeneralUser (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pythoncoder. I liked your guide and it might well reflect the results. 52% of the votes were cast on day 1 of the ballot. You might find this full analysis of the campaign to be of interest. You are welcome to leave your thoughts on its talk page. Take care, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for the kind words. I'm glad some people read my guide and liked it. I did try to do more research this year into each candidate, partly for me and partly for the guide, and it looks like that paid off. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EasyWikiDev

Hi! I'm User:Ed6767. I'm probably best known for founding and developing Wikipedia:RedWarn, which is now one of the most used user scripts on the English Wikipedia. I couldn't help but notice that you also develop user scripts, so I was wondering if I could ask you to try and give me feedback on my new tool called EasyWikiDev. It's a new way to develop user scripts quickly and easily using Visual Studio Code, and only takes a few minutes to set up and install on your computer, whilst saving you the headache of constantly having to save edits and reload the page for every single change to your script you'd like to test. EasyWikiDev makes it so you can develop your script locally, on your own computer, and only publish the changes to your users when you are ready to - and unlike other solutions, EasyWikiDev reloads the page right away when you make a change, so you always see the latest version of your script. Plus, by using Visual Studio Code, you have access to some of the most extensive and helpful extensions and tools available to developers right now.

If you're interested, you can find the GitHub repository here and a video tutorial that shows both how to set up EasyWikiDev and how to use it (which you should watch) here. When you have tried it and would like to give feedback, or just need help, please let me know by pinging me - you'd play a big part in my goal to make user script development easier for all Wikipedians. Thanks again for your consideration, ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 12:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)