Jump to content

User talk:Writ Keeper/Archives/12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ZackDickens12

NO TIME LEFT FOR YOU
On my way to better things. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yes, of course he's allowed to remove things from his talk page, or restore them, no question about that. But we're also talking here about an editor who is obviously very young, and I think we have a certain obligation to educate inexperienced editors to the culture and byways of Wikipedia. Yes, certainly, I could have done that with a note on his talk page, and perhaps I should have -- but you'll notice that he's removed all the good advice he's received (from myself and others) already, so that would probably have been a wasted effort. I won't contest your revert (as you say, it's not something to dwell on), but I do wish you had allowed him to make that choice rather than taking it on yourself - maybe, just maybe, he might have decided to grow up just a little bit, which would have been a step in his progress.

In any case, water under the bridge. Best, BMK (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not that you're wrong; you're quite right that we need to educate inexperienced editors. But the question is: how do we do so, and what tone do we take while we do it? What's more the point is that you/we tried that already, and he restored them. So clearly it's his wish to have them, and, y'know, it's really not that big a deal, so there's no reason to possibly antagonize him further by removing it again. Trying to remove them once was all right, but trying again was a little much, IMO.

It's a fine line, of course: the need to provide meaningful instruction balanced against the need to not antagonize them (which will make them not listen to the instruction). I think, with this particular person, we're falling too much on the side of stick and not enough on the side of carrot. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" works (if you're of the school of thought that it does work, that is) because a child is a captive audience, so to speak--they have no choice but to take their medicine, which in turn gives them a chance to learn from it. Here, since editors are not a captive audience, employing the rod can simply drive them away forever, making any good advice unheard and thus worthless.

There's also the need to minimize damage, of course; drawing the line at the RfA, for example, was probably a good call (though even then, closing it 15 minutes after it went live was still probably somewhat hasty). But the self-awards is really not the behavior we need to make a stand about. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that we, as a community, have a good handle on how to deal with young editors. We've got WP:CIR, of course, but that's most often used as a reason for blocking, and there's very little that can be done before it reaches that stage, because, in general, we insist on treating all editors the same, as responsible adults, even when its clear that this is not the case. (I'm speaking in the abstract here, not particularly talking about ZackDickens12 and this minor incident.) It's somewhat reminiscent of the WMF's refusal to see that not requiring registration, and allowing IP editing, is, overall, a detriment to the project, and that much vandalism and quasi-sockpuppetry (editors with accounts logging out to avoid scrutiny) would be eliminated if they changed their policy to something reasonable, like pretty much every other website on the Net.

Anyway, I'm rambling - my point is that it would be nice to have a way to deal with young editors somewhat differently than adult editors, other than the informal things that have grown up over time, such as the "Not Now" closing of ZD12's RfA. If there were systemic restrictions on their editing, and they understood that when they began, then it wouldn't seem so punitive to have curmudgeons like myself wagging their finger at them. As it is now, by assuming from the beginning that all editors are going to behave like responsible adults, the negative response to childish misbehavior is magnified; and by the time it becomes clear that the behavior is childish because a child is behind the keyboard, everyone's already a bit put out, and inclined to be harsher than they (I) probably should be. BMK (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you take a look at what's going on with ZackDickens12 and the newly created ZackDickens100? Is he trying the do bad hand/good hand and is just very bad at it? Is he just messing around? Or is someone else trolling him? Maybe a CU can take a look. (Also, he tried to open another RfA today, bothed up the transclusion, and then deleted the comments from 3 editors (at least 2 of them admins). BMK (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I asked a CU, and it's him. I think I'm going to softblock that and his two accounts that are artifacts from his renames and give him a final warning. This nonsense has got to stop; I still don't think it's to the point of a year-long or indef yet, but I don't think a shorter block will improve the situation appreciably, so hopefully this will serve. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to thank you and the IP for fixing the csd on Zack100. I thought a deletion or block would help get Zack's attention, but I didn't think an SPI was the way to go. (I don't know much about that subject.) Let's continue to work with Zack with both encouragement and some slaps on the wrist. – S. Rich (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I'm hoping, but if he doesn't slow down and start listening, there is a point where we can't keep humoring him. Some might argue that we've reached that point already. The probelm is that the only tool we really have is blocking, and with young editors, it's far too blunt an instrument; even a day's block can seem like an eternity, and they will very rarely see an indefinite--or even a block of finite but long duration, like a year--as anything less than a permanent ban. That's what I was alluding to in my post to BMK just above: we basically can't block him without losing him forever. But we can't wait forever, either, and there's the rub. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I may generally be a hardass, but I don't disagree with what you folks are saying. Where I define the line that gets crossed to justify a long block is almost certainly less forgiving that your, but I do agree that ZD12 is not quite there yet. He's working overtime at getting there, though.

Thanks for looking into it. BMK (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I know that users are allowed to delete comments from their talk pages, with the presumption that doing so means that they have been read, but ZD12 removes every comment almost immediately after it's been posted, without responding, giving the casual visitor to his talk page the impression that everything's hunky-dory with his editing, which is far from the case - he's had at least a dozen warnings that he's just swept under the carpet. He's also edit-warred to restore protection tags to his user page, when it is not protected. I really think we're getting to the point where a final warning might be necessary, with the hope that a short, sharp shock might change his ways. BMK (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Now he's requesting that his talk page be deleted, and he's done something bizarre to get an article deleted - I can't unravel it (see his contribs). BMK (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind, SuperMarioMan blocked him for a week for disruptive editing, and various editors undid his other edits. BMK (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Noting that I posted on the MfD and on his talkpage before I saw any of this. If he winds up being long-term blocked or indeffed, which would be an unfortunate outcome for his morale if not for the encyclopedia, I might wind up blanking (as opposed to deleting) his talkpage, to help him to stay away for awhile. In any event, we'll see how he responds to my post on his talk. (I note that he's asked for an unblock, but hasn't posted an unblock request using the template, which means few admins will see it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, probably several admins will see it, and I think that's part of the problem with the way we've handled this. Too many cooks are in the kitchen here. I mean, yes, he's being disruptive. I actually saw part of the beginning of this latest episode and was considering blocking him, but I was too tired to make a real go of it. But now I wake up and there are like six new threads on his talk page, all from different people. Most are probably telling him more or less the same thing, but everyone has to get their say, I suppose. But while we're all stumbling over each other to tell this kid exactly how wrong he is, what does this look like to him? How does it make him feel? I mean, hearing it from one person is necessary, but hearing it from the entire peanut gallery? Well, I say "peanut gallery", but I don't really mean that, because most of the editors who commented are people I very highly respect (not to mention that I'm as guilty of it as anyone). But this is the kind of thing I think leads people to believe that we are an insular group who hate any newcomers trying to intrude on our territory; it looks like we're all just dogpiling on the innocent newbie. I mean, he needs to hear someone tell him what he's doing wrong, but does he really need to hear it in surround sound? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't have intervened at all if I'd seen how many other admins were on the case ... partly a function of some earlier interactions on his talkpage having been blanked ... wait, this is where I came in ...
I assume it would be silly to ask if he's been pointed to Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors at least once? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It is a question of whether this is CIR or trolling. While I have gone well out of my way to assume good faith in every comment I've made, there is a voice in the back of my head that says we are being played. The timing of the button pushing is almost too perfect. Regardless, the most recent edits make it clear that the distinction is no longer as relevant. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I got pinged and unpinged, I see[1]. Trolls really just hate being called out and busted. They'd much rather carry on the charade for their own "jollies". Trolls that hide behind the lie of being a young editor abuse the AGF of good editors to their advantage. After all: who's going to pick on a little kid? I use caution before ABF'ing and labeling an editor as a troll, believe me. Age is irrelevant when being claimed as an "excuse", as he did with the "I am young if someone is young please don't block them" request. There are plenty of young computer-savvy people all over the world who edit here, as either good or bad WP editors. We don't want minors posting their personal information, but aside from that it makes no difference how old one is. It only matters if one can competently edit here. Normal editors wouldn't delete what I had to say on their talk page with "I don't trust you!!!!" Perhaps it's just a hopeless incompetent, and not a real troll. Meh. Call it a "gut feeling", but I knew this was a bad apple. Cheers :) Doc talk 07:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

  • In case you hadn't noticed, he's carrying on pasting that article back into his talk page - time to deny access? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Probably. Dennis has handled it for now, but any repetition and I'll revoke TP access. Not a happy time for anyone, but at least it'll be over, for better or worse. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah, episodes like this are always a bit sad - maybe he'll be back when he's grown up a bit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I think we're well past the point where gross incompetence (for whatever reason) is indistinguishable from deliberate trolling, and I'm more and more in agreement with Doc that the latter is probable. BMK (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Yeah, well, it hardly matters now. I'm not going to remove TPA unless he makes it necessary by further shenanigans. Whether it's trolling or not, the situation is kinda bumming me out, and I really don't think there's anything else to say about it, so no more, please. We've spent more than enough time on this, and I'm tired of things. If one of y'all see something that really requires TPA removal, and for one reason or another can't do it yourself, feel free to post a succinct message below; otherwise, let's let it go. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Hi Writ Keeper,
Umm since you blocked him you should probably know he's created 2 new accounts - Za89 (talk · contribs) + Zack2014 (talk · contribs),
Just thought I'd tell you,
Thanks, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 10:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep, but we do have SPI for these sorts of things. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I know but I thought It'd be easier to just ask you instead, Sorry to have bothered you!., Oops sorry I wasn't aware I should've filed one, Thanks for your help much appreciated, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem. It's not a big deal, really; it just provides a record for admins to review in the case of future unblock requests. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah I didn't think of it like that, Anyway thanks again :)
Regards, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm Drmies. An edit that you recently made to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks for testing, but please don't do it on a frequently-visited board such as ANI. Good thing User:Writ Keeper was there to revert you immediately. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:Drmies, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Script tweak requested

Sometimes it saddens me that Wikipedia isn't social media... it seems the only time I ever drop by here is to beg favours or make requests, rather than ask you how your day was and whether you saw the latest episode of Game of Thrones... Feel free to respond to both of those questions if you like, but the real reason I'm here is (suprise!) a script request. I was wondering whether you could jiggle the settings on User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/easyBlock.js so that there was a "suspected sock"/"confirmed sock" option that allowed an indef block with talkpage access removed. Having spent a little time yesterday dealing with a couple of prolific sockers, both of whom resort to talkpage vandalism after being blocked, it would have been rather handy to be able to kill their talkpage at the point of blocking, rather than having to adjust the block settings after the fact. Yunshui 雲水 10:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

K, done. Worked first time, for a change. Bypass your cache if you don't see the new options, as usual. My day was about as good as it could get, which given the circumstances is not saying a whole lot, but c'est la vie. I'm actually not a fan of Game of Thrones, neither books nor show (blasphemy!): too grimdark. It's like those miserable Psalms, they're so depressing... I'm evidently more attached to sunshine, happy endings, and fluffy puppies than killing off all of the likeable characters (or twisting them to be unlikeable) Because The Author Is Edgy Like That and situations that are only going to get worse before they get worse. The underlying mythology of the series is kind of interesting to me--I have been known to trawl A Wiki of Ice and Fire for spoilers--and if the series of books ever actually gets finished, I'll be interested to read a synopsis, but I'm not going to get emotionally invested in a story that is actively trying to disappoint me in that respect. I want my entertainment to let me think about things other than how shitty the world is, not reinforce that idea. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Touched a nerve there, did I? I won't ask whether you're a fan of Forbrydelsen, then... Well, I'm glad you're having a good day, at least. Thanks muchly - as always - for the tweak, the new "(no TPA)" options are showing up in my menu already. Yunshui 雲水 13:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's not just that it's dark; it's that particular kind of dark that makes you think, "well, everything is pretty much effed forever". Like, there was nothing particularly happy about True Detective, for the most part, but I still loved it, because there's at least a glimmer of hope that they might catch the guy. There are no glimmers in Game of Thrones; basically as soon as Ned became the King's Hand, I thought, "well, it's almost certainly all downhill from here", and then when Ned was executed (spoilers), I thought, "well, now it is certainly all downhill from here." There needs to be some chance that things will turn out all right for me to keep interest--even if that chance doesn't work out in the end. When you totally extinguish that chance in the first of seven books, there's really not much reason for me to maintain interest. And it's actually not just that, either; I'm also a fan of H.P. Lovecraft, who is not known for giving much in the way of hope (though a few of his stories actually do have relatively happy endings, so as to not totally ruin the suspense). But there, it's interesting, at least. Lovecraft is all about the mythology; the danger and evil of his stories come from the mythology. As an aside: though ultimately the evil in True Detective comes from mundane sources (spoilers), it is still heavily steeped in mythology--see all the references to The King in Yellow, which was a great book, mostly, and also an influence on Lovecraft--and so scores a lot of points for me in the same way. As I tend to be interested in the mythology, that works out for me. In Game of Thrones, there is mythology--which, as mentioned, does interest me--but most of the conflict and evil in the story doesn't come from that (with the notable exception of the ghouls and the White Walkers, of course); it comes from people just being dicks. There are enough dicks in the real world; I don't need my fantasy worlds to be full of them also. Also, politics bores me, so yeah. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
You're an admin on Wikipedia and politics bores you? How did you make it through RFA? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
By being bored. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
You mean boring? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Not really. I really don't think it took much politicking, at least not for me; just, like, don't be a goober, don't care too much about the result (very important), and know your stuff, and you'll be fine in any RfX. As y'all know, but for the benefit of any TPSes who may still be reading (what is wrong with you?!), being an admin is not terribly interesting anyway, and is frequently actually unpleasant. It passes the time, though, in a way that's possibly marginally more useful than many other things that one can do on the Internet. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Quite; if you find GoT depressingly bleak I'm amazed you've survived adminship so capably. Yunshui 雲水 14:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, there are enough dicks in the real world that I don't need more in my entertainment. t-that's what she said? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that could easily be taken the wrong way. Yunshui 雲水 14:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

msg

Hello, Writ Keeper/Archives. 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.
Yes, I saw it. I've actually already performed the rename; the account you're using now is actually a new version that's automatically created by SUL, since your SUL account is still attached to your old username. Make sure you log out, then use your new username to log in in the future. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

My AN/I AGF comment

Just wanted to make clear that my comment was not aimed at you, or at your decisions in that particular incident which, as I said, I have not looked into. My comment was in response to Ent's inane statement

Despite our disagreements, I respect you as an admin, not that that should necessarily mean anything to you. Best, BMK (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and I know; I simply don't think a generalized debate on AGF in that thread is a good idea. Apart from any other consideration, ANI is certainly not the place for that. (Also, it allowed me an ample opportunity to apply all my alliterative abilities.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I concur with your conclusion to close as counter-productive. BMK (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

both for the closing or re-closing of the previous thread and your quick response on the current one. I don't know what happened the first time, and I get the impression I really don't want to know. Current ongoing discussions about categorizing people as pseudoscientists or involved in same-sex marriages and the like make me actually kinda glad that I decided to devote more time to developing lists of extant and potential articles from other reference sources, and adding some of the really old ones to wikisource. But I am extremely gratified that there continue to be people willing to do the really hard, and at times maybe a little unusual, tasks that I don't personally have either the guts or the knowledge to have ever done. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome, but I don't know; you're probably doing more good to the encyclopedia than I am. Who can tell. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A tricky request for userfication

I was looking for something today in my own sandbox space, and it turned out to be transcluded from another (now banned) user's space. I see you CSD'd it as U1 today. User:KumiokoCleanStart/Articles to create. I and others have been working from that list for years. Any chance that material could be userfied to my sandbox space (User:BusterD/Articles to Create)? BusterD (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand from User:Go Phightins! that you decided to restore the page in its original location. I'm hopeful that nobody minds my continuing to utilize this tool until the redlinks are filled. I doubt the page creator would mind. It represents important pagespace yet uncreated. BusterD (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you, kind sir. You have inspired me to make more productive, less disadvantageous and intelligent edits on Wikipedia. I hereby give you the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. Linkiscool99 (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for inviting me to the Teahouse. Now i feel at home here in Wikipedia. Plus, I can get some answers to the problems I've been having. Thanks! Spacedude3000 (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

This script could be improved

I am currently using a script (User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/SearchNamespace.js). It is useful, but could be improved. When a namespace is selected, and you begin to type in a name, it gives suggestions from the mainspace, rather than the namespace selected. It would be greatly improved if it showed suggestions from the selected namespace. (Example: Set the namespace to "Wikipedia:" and type in "m" -- the first three suggestions are Mollusca, Moth, and Mexico, rather than Manual of Style, Media copyright questions, and Mailing lists.)

I'm using IE11 and Vector skin if that's any help. Thanks! Eman235/talk 07:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've thought about that. I personally don't use the search suggestions anyway, so I never really bothered, but I'll probably try it; it would require a more or less entire rewrite, though, since the current approach the script takes isn't one that would affect the search suggestions. And actually, funnily enough, the advanced search screen has exactly the same problem as my script, despite it being a standard part of the software. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Huh, go figure. Anyway, if you can do it that would be cool. :) Eman235/talk 21:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, come to think of it, why doesn't this have the Book: namespace? Eman235/talk 07:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that's just because I haven't added it yet. I'll add it now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Cool. Eman235/talk 03:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

AN closure

Maybe you should change your user name to Wit Keeper. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Your scripts

Hi Writ, thought I'd let you know that I'm trying out User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/googleTitle.js and User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/blockDefaults.js. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Cool, let me know if you have any issues. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

User MimiFatPig

Hello. Per WP:DUCK I believe MimiFatPig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who you just gave a level-4-im for harassing Acalamari, is a sock/meat puppet of Mark4Mark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked for a week by Chillum for the same thing less than an hour ago. Both target Acalamari and both are Christina Aguilera fans... Thomas.W talk 21:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

commonHistory.js

Hi, I have had your script installed for quite a while and enjoy its output. It is a great addition to Wikipedia, and I think it should be part of the default layout, but I digress. I do have a question about it, though. Why do you filter out the functionality for js/css pages? To my knowledge there is no difference in a diff to a js/css page and one to a regular page, yet your code specifically picks out js/css to forgo adding the link. There has to be a reason, but I'm not sure what it is. Could you enlighten me? Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least at the time I wrote it, the script didn't work on .js or .css pages; I think the API call I make bugged out, though it's so long ago that I don't exactly remember. I might try it again and see if it works now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The query seems to work fine (shown in XML, not JSON) on JS files now. Didn't specifically try a CSS page, but there should be no difference.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What's going on?

See this. One edit? Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 is full of his edits. The database was locked a few minutes ago--maybe that caused a problem? Drmies (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) Drmies, Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple#Phil_Kessel_.E2.86.92_GLG_GLG probably has a lot to do with it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Interesting. So how come there's one edit left on his old account, one from in the middle of his career, so to speak? Drmies (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No idea what-so-ever. Just my guess as to why it is reporting as it is. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
        • This is a thing that happens with renames sometimes. First, some background: usernames are, for the most part, globally unified now. If you log into your Drmies account on enwiki and then go to a different WMF wiki, like Commons for example, you don't need to re-login there, too; you're automatically logged into your Drmies account on Commons. If you've never been to Commons before and don't have an account there, that's no problem; the software will automatically create your Drmies account for you behind the scenes, automatically attach it to your SUL (standing for Single Unified Login, which is what such globalized accounts are called) and log you into it; this all happens seamlessly, so that you'll never know anything changed.

          What happened here is that, when we 'crats rename an account on enwiki, we can rename it on enwiki only; we can't change the SUL nor the associated accounts on other wikis. So, basically what our rename function does is detach one's enwiki account from one's SUL (since you can't have different usernames attached to the same SUL) and rename it locally only. BUT--the SUL still exists at the old name. So, what happened here is that we renamed the user on enwiki only, as per our standard process. Their enwiki account got renamed, and in the process, it was detached from their SUL. But their SUL at the old name still exists, and they were still logged into it (or possibly, their browser still remembers their old login information and logged them in; either way). So, when they go to edit, while logged in under their old SUL, the software says, "Aha! This guy has a SUL but no account on enwiki--[since we renamed his former account on enwiki, the old name becomes empty and available]--so let me automatically [re]create an account for him on enwiki!" And then when he makes an edit, he's made it to his newly-recreated account under his old account name, which he almost certainly never noticed. That's why there's only that one edit in his contribs--all the other ones were moved along with his enwiki account to his new username. This is a fresh account, automatically created by the perversely helpful software, with only this single edit in the contribs. Heck, it's possible that he simply just manually logged into his old account, not knowing that it had been already renamed, and since the software is trying to be helpful, it quietly recreated his account, since the SUL still exists, instead of just telling him that his login info is wrong.

          This kind of thing happens all the time, actually, and it's fairly annoying. I had proposed a lockout to fix it--where accounts that had recently been renamed couldn't be recreated for a certain amount of time after the rename--but it never went anywhere; it's probably still buried in Bugzilla somewhere. More recently, they released a global rename tool for stewards (a precursor to global SUL finalization, which is a whole 'nother thing), wherein a steward can rename all a user's accounts simultaneously, which avoids detaching things from people's SULs and nips this in the bud along with it. I've proposed that us 'crats stop fulfilling local renames and instead forward simple rename requests to meta for the stewards to handle with the new tool to avoid these kinds of things (the thread is still on BN, I think), but the discussion, in the inevitable wiki way, has bogged down and is going nowhere. *shrug* But yeah, this is a known issue with renames, and is not uncommon. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Thanks for explaining at length. (Yes, I actually read your answer, and understood most of it!) Interesting issues. Would you like for me to throw my weight around and get something done? Perversely, I've actually gained a pound or two since my insulin was better adjusted by my doctor last week. Thanks again, Mr. Bureaucrat of Flaccostreet, Drmies (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly

"How can a man who is warm understand a man who is cold?" And vice-versa, thank you for your kind words in Mies' page, take care.

Signing off, Always (not) Learning --84.90.219.128 (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

So long, Vasco, and thanks for all the fish! :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

How did this happen (landed on my e-mail two days ago or so) kind (former) WP teammate (please see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Always_Learning)? I thought i was done, over and out, wikiwise that is.

Just curious, can you enlighten me? Keep it up --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, you are; not sure what the deal with that warning is. I'll ask MrScorch where that warning came from in a bit (somewhat short on time at the moment). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No news on the front? --84.90.219.128 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, Vasco, I kinda forgot about this; it's been a trying few days, both in real life and onwiki. I've asked MrScorch about it, and if it was a simple mistake like I expect, I'll just re-delete the page. Either way, though, I don't think it's anything for you to worry about; I'll take care of it, I promise. (Really this time!) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Why don't i learn man? A friendly message (wanted to know how User:MYS77 was doing, wikiwise and not, just mentioned the guy with whom i had a run-in - MENTIONED not ATTACKED - because MYS was directly involved in the "battle", so i wanted to know in what state the two articles were in, just curiosity, have not edited one thing in weeks) resulted in another warning by Mr. Scorch, after a complaint by the aforementioned user.

Sigh... if you could drop a line in Scorch's page. Thank you very much in advance (i say "in advance" because, having already thanked you, it's safe to say i'll stop writing here for a very longtime), take care! --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, indeed. The rules they quote don't apply to user talk pages, and of course having personal conversations with people in a language both of you understand isn't disruptive. I'll get all rules-lawyer to them; gods help us all if this actually goes to ANI as MrScorch suggests. You have a knack for finding trouble, Vasco, but you didn't do anything wrong, and I'll back you up in this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies in Mr.Panhead's (Panhead is the user that filed the complaint in Scorch's page) page were summarily removed with the summary "Don't wish to be bothered by this person". If you come into contact with this user, please tell him if he does not wish so, then please stop talking about me/reporting me behind my back. Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

My complaints against User talk 210.210.162.74

Please LOOK at his/her/its talkpage and you'll see this:

China Airlines 611
I saw this edit. Edits like these damage the integrity of Wikipedia (to other editors: the nationality count as stated in reliable sources included a Swiss passenger and a Singaporean passenger - none of the passengers came from Mexico or the US)

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume that User:WhisperToMe did not post this without reason....... Viva-Verdi (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that, but look at the edit that WhisperToMe links to: it's dated July 27th. whisperToMe undoubtedly had a reason to post on the IP's talk page, but the reason wasn't necessarily recent vandalism, and it didn't necessarily require reporting to AIV. Or WhisperToMe could've simply been mistaken; it happens to the best of us. The point is that reports to AIV should be for recent behavior, and you should make sure that there is, in fact, recent behavior to report--by checking the user's contributions--before making it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Rehs Galleries

Thank You for your assistance. Enjoy your weekend.

Howard L. Rehs (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Plz Help Me

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 plz help i try creating the page about the rapper Johncongo but there is a problem! Latertinsna 03:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC) pls help get Johncongo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latertinsna (talk • contribs) 12:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

German

I am using Chrome at the moment, so I went to the page Glaisher mentioned and tried Chrome's automated translate. What a waste of space: someone abstained in the de-WP RfC with the comment "is my content jacket and trousers". Somehow, I don't think that is an accurate translation ... - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried using Google Translate to figure out what was going on in the page, and to see what the "you are not allowed to edit this page" message for superprotection (in passing, what a stupid name for anything; no wonder the WMF has its share of opponents) was. It was...less than helpful, though that may be because I think there is no actual message implemented to tell the user that something is superprotected. It would certainly seem that this feature was implemented half-baked in order to restore the WMF's upper hand. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
"Superprotection" will have its origins in "superuser", as in the *nix world. I've always had the impression that Möller might be quite an arrogant sort of bloke but I've never seen anyone break ranks: they speak with one voice rather more successfully than do most cabinets. Often it seems to be a poor choice of voice, though. That said, it has not all been bad news. Wikilove is stupid but once they compromised on the talk page notification issue, the ping/notification system really does work rather well. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
(funny, we edit conflicted) @Sitush: Did you see this? https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Logbuch&page=MediaWiki%3ACommon.js I don't know if Chrome can make anything out that Google Translate can't (it failed me again), but it looks like a sysop on dewiki deleted and restored Common.js to remove the superprotection (it is a known thing that deletion and restoration removes protection settings; I had wondered earlier if they thought to make it undeletable by admins as well as uneditable; guess they didn't think of that. Half-baked, like I say.) Of course, Erik Moller, using his Eloquence account again to re-protect. There are gonna be bonfires in dewiki tonight... EDIT: Twice now! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Here it is:
20:16, 10 August 2014 Strays ( Talk | Contributions ) presented page MediaWiki: Common.js Restore (2 versions were recovered: recover any deleted versions for posterity)
19:19, August 10, 2014 Eloquence ( Talk | Contributions ) protected " Nostalgia skin "[edit = super protect] (unlimited) [move = super protect] (unlimited) ( versions )
19:10, 10 August 2014 Drahreg01 ( Talk | Contributions ) presented page MediaWiki: Common.js Restore (288 versions were restored: Because I can.)
19:10, 10 August 2014 Drahreg01 ( Talk | Contributions ) deleted page MediaWiki: Common.js (Because I can.)
16:22, 10 August 2014 JEissfeldt (WMF) ( talk | contributions ) protected " Nostalgia skin "[edit = super protect] (unlimited) [move = super protect] (unlimited) (protection of MediaWiki- function page) ( versions )
Woo-hoo. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
And the comments on Drahreg01's talk (I'm not formatting this lot - too much effort)

You are just awesome! Thank you so much! - Gleiberg ( talk ) 19:15, 10 August 2014 (CEST) Please do not verstehen..öhöm wrong

Amazingly simple idea. Thank you. - Bellini Purchases No Danke.svg 19:18, 10 August 2014 (CEST)

Heghlu'meH QAQ jajvam! - Crd 19:18, 10 August 2014 (CEST) I did not think that I can. But, as they say: Be of courage - Drahreg01 ( discussion ) 3WF 19:20, 10 August 2014 (CEST)

Sorry for the English talk here, but yea, you can remove any kind of protection by deleting the page and restoring it;-) - Wiki13 ( talk ) 19:22, 10 August 2014 (CEST) Brilliant! Greetings from the Netherlands! JurgenNL ( Talk ) 19:24, 10 August 2014 (CEST) I see it right, the Erik Möller entry took out again to deactivate and the new super full protection reinstated? [1] - HOP 盒 19:31, 10 August 2014 (CEST) Yes. - Drahreg01 ( discussion ) 3WF 19:35, 10 August 2014 (CEST) Yeah, one is tempted to wonder whether the Foundation is interested in freelance writers. - HOP 盒 19:45, 10 August 2014 (CEST) Very cool! Super and Thanks ... Certainly post 19:40, 10 August 2014 (CEST) no opinion on the Media Viewer MB, but the action of the WMF is completely unacceptable to me I do feel did Eriks' action is Meant to making a point thatthey do not want wiki's to disable Media Viewer. I agree it did shoulderstand be the discission of the community to have MV enabled or not. - Wiki13 ( talk ) 19:42, 10 August 2014 (CEST)

  • Well, what I'm really curious about is Erik's edit summary. What exactly does he mean by "unlimited"? Now, granted, that might simply be a case of machine translation missing the nuances (do you know any German speakers who could be more authoritative?), but if it isn't... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC) Nevermind, that's not an edit summary: just a reference to the indefinite length of the protection. That's, in itself, somewhat troubling in another way (we don't protect articles indefinitely to stop an edit war, only temporarily), but doesn't imply the same delusions of grandeur. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BN

FWIW, in case it's not clear, the main point of bringing up the issue there was to get a definitive statement from the 'crat community' as to whether or not the 'procedural' removal of rights from someone who was not appointed as a 'permanent admin' according to the procedures of the time was within the purview of crats or not. It was a point of discussion, and not purely in regards to Eloquence, that was brought up after people mentioned that they were unaware of him ever passing an RfA. I have not specifically hunted for other 'legacy' admins that have the tools under the same circumstances, but it's apparently an open question regarding several.

Personally, I don't specifically 'care' if Eloquence is locally debitted or not, despite what TParis seems to think, since it will have exactly zero effect on what he can actually do anyhow. If anything, bringing it up in respect to him instead of other admins is less confrontational, since he has rights as WMF staff. Reventtalk 05:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I don't mind you asking or even if you do want Eloquence desysopped. I'm just telling you that there's only one place on enwiki where a sysop can be separated from their bit without their consent, and that's Arbcom, even though it's the 'crats that pull the proverbial trigger. There is, of course, a vast gulf between the technical ability to do a thing and the actual authority to do that thing. If I'm speaking forcefully, it's because the idea that 'crats--or admins, or anyone else with an advanced permission for that matter--can extend the limits of their power through creative interpretation (which is usually synonymous for blatant disregard) of the rules is one that really rustles my jimmies; probably one of the reasons why people let me be a 'crat in the first place. I could go on, but I'm trying to remember that brevity is wit, so I won't. We can talk about this more though, if you want to; up to you. Peace, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, this would not have been the first time, even in my relatively short tenure as a bureaucrat, that a user has tried to create a desysop process on the fly, so that probably added to any testiness on my part. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I frankly apologize if I gave the impression that I was attempting to do so, as it was not my intent to get the crats to 'exceed their mandate'. To be honest, I rather expected the request to be declined on the exact grounds that you gave. Discussion made it quite apparent, however, that the issue of whether or not it was within the scope of the authority of the crats to remove rights, under those terms, was not considered to be clear. FYI, it is my understanding that someone else is preparing (not on my suggestion, or with my input) an RfC on the issue of if the removal of rights given 'for a specific task' upon completion of that task should be added to the mandate of bureaucrats.
To be honest, a major problem that I see with Wikipedia is that there are a large number of users who are unwilling to raise such issues, specifically because they believe they will be personally attacked. I was not the only person who considered it to be an open question, I was just the only one willing to speak up. And I was, predictably, personally attacked. Reventtalk 05:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
You weren't, I suppose, but even the slightest hint of such is enough to get my hackles raised, so if that has caused me to miss the mark, I apologize. I'm sorry that you've been personally attacked, though I'm glad to see that it hasn't stopped you. For the rest, who knows what the future holds; not I, said the fly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Writ Keeper, quick question. Sorry for reopening this discussion. If there is an RfC to determine that Eloquence(and everyone else who specifically asked for temp sysop perms), would 'crats carry it out? What kind of RfC would cut it? Would something like User:Lixxx235/Sandbox2 work? Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 14:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, in the general case, yes, something like that would have to be done, and it would have to be a very well-constructed, -advertised, and -attended RfC indeed. In the specific case of Eloquence, I don't know that this would do it, though; it might be said that he (and any others) will have gotten grandfathered in by now. Or maybe not. In any event, it would certainly be true that the RfC must be placed in general terms. If this is something you really want to pursue, you might want to post a new thread on BN, asking for input from all the 'crats, and at AN and/or one of the village pumps, to seek input from admins and the community at large, before you start to run this. That'll both help get the word out fairly neutrally and allow you to get a sense of whether the community supports this and if they have any specific concerns that you can address before the RfC proper. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you help me out with editing an article that you have posed for deletion. Sssneha (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I never fail to be amazed by your unending courtesy and your ability to remain civil and level-headed, even when faced with the worst of people. Everytime I start losing my cool, I feel like I should strive to follow your example. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Eh, I dunno about all that; I'm just this guy, you know? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't make me add a "barnstar of modesty" on top of the first one. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The myriad opportunities that arise from the combination of "loving attitude" and things directed at oneself are just too obvious, so I'm going to have to pass on that. Feel free to insert the obligatory masturbation joke (bonus points for working in the phrase "civility circlejerk"!) at your leisure. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) 👍 Like <--- And social networking, of course. Welcome to the rebooted, Friendly Space Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)An asshole is a good thing. If you did not have an ass hole, you wouldn't be able to excrete the non-useful byproducts of digestion from your body as efficiently, and you would no doubt die quickly. I am strongly in favor of assholes. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

?

Que? Drmies (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Just looks like someone toying around with/testing out the template syntax. Should be mostly harmless.
*deep breath*
For those playing along at home: User:Kdoskapfkdpsllad/d/c will provide output only if there is an unnamed parameter to it that is either "c" or "g" and a parameter named "a" with a value of either "b" or "c"; in which case, it will return the value of the unnamed parameter (that is, either c or g). So, if we were to call {{User:Kdoskapfkdpsllad/d/c|c|a=b}} or {{User:Kdoskapfkdpsllad/d/c|c|a=c}}, we would get c out. If we called {{User:Kdoskapfkdpsllad/d/c|g|a=b}} or {{User:Kdoskapfkdpsllad/d/c|g|a=c}}, we would get g out. Anything else would return nothing.
To explain: there are two switch statements nested within it; the first switches on the parameter named "a". If this parameter has the value "b", it falls through to the next case (since there's no action provided for "b"), which is when the parameter has the "c" value and it moves onto the inner switch statement. Thus, {{#switch:{{{a|}}}|b|c=[something] }}, the outer switch statement, could be written in English as "if the parameter named a is given a value of either "b" or "c", do something; otherwise, do nothing." That "something", in this case, is the inner switch statement: {{#switch:{{{1|}}}|c=c|g=g}}. This switch statement checks the value of the unnamed variable and, if its value is "c", return "c", and if its value is "g", return "g". So, the whole thing could be written in English as: First, check the value of the variable named "a". If that value either "b" or "c", then go on to check the value of the unnamed variable. If that value is "c", print out "c"; if it is "g", print out "g". In any other case, don't do anything.
User:Kdoskapfkdpsllad/d, is an attempted calling of this code twice; once with the unnamed variable given a value of "1", and once with the unnamed value of "2". Since neither of those cases match anything in the situation I described above (no "a" variable given, and the unnamed variable doesn't match either of the two values against which it might be checked), neither attempts print out anything, and so the page ends up being blank.
The others are simpler tests. User:Kdoskapfkdpsllad/d/a and User:Kdoskapfkdpsllad/d/c/a, which are identical, is a simpler switch statement. Basically the switch statement in there takes the value "foo" and says: if this value equals either "x" or "y", print out "x"; if it equals "foo", print out "z". Since the value in question is indeed "foo", both of these will always print out "z". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Damn! Damn it Writ Keeper, I tried--but I have no idea what "output" means here, and since I don't know that, I suppose that "provide" is already above my understanding. Damn! And you tried so hard! (How is "2" an unnamed value? isn't "2" a name as well, in fact the name for 2?) Well, at least it's z in either case, so I can go to sleep without worry. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, normally I would just pour myself another drink and drown my sorrows about how much of a frigging nerd I am at this point, but because it's you, I'll try again. So: all the "ouput" is is what shows up on the screen at the end of the day. Like, if I type in {{#expr: 2 + 3}}, without the nowiki tags around it, 5 will get displayed in its place in the final screen, like this: 5. If you look at the source of the page (i.e. what's in the editing screen), you'll see the code {{#expr: 2 + 3}}, but in the finished screen, you'll just see a 5, because Wikipedia sees it, sees that we're telling it to evaluate an expression (which is what the "#expr" part means), goes ahead and evaluates it (obviously, 2+3 is 5), and replaces all that stuff with the result of that evaluation. "5" is thus the output of {{#expr: 2 + 3}}.
      So, the next thing to clarify is the variable names and values. When you write out the code to a template, like say {{archive top|some stuff}}, all of the stuff after the first | character are the arguments (or parameters; I use the two terms interchangeably, though I probably shouldn't) to the template. All the stuff before that | character identifies which template we're calling; the stuff after it is information we're giving to the template to use however it wants. So, in this example, we're using the "archive top" template (Wikipedia assumes the starting Template:, so this template is actually located at Template:archive top), and we're passing in the data "some stuff" for it to use--which, in this case, it'll use to make that handy closing comments-style box at the top. Now, another way to do this would be to write: {{archive top|result=some other stuff}}. Again, the same thing is in front of the | character, so we're using the same template as before. But this time, we're passing it "result=some other stuff", instead of "some stuff". If we were to actually write both of these out, though, we would get almost exactly the same thing in both cases: the only thing that'll be different is that the second one will have the word "other" in it; the "result=" bit wouldn't show up. What is going on here is that we've named the variable that we're passing in. Basically, whenever an equals sign shows up in one of the parameters, whatever comes before it (up to the | character) becomes that variable's name; the rest of the stuff after becomes that variable's value. Later on, when we want to use those variables in the code of the template, we can refer back to it using the name we gave it (here, the name "result"), and the code will instantly know what bit of information we're talking about: we can just say "Code, give me the value of the variable named 'result'", and the code will know that we mean "some other stuff". If we don't use equal signs and name our variables (as we didn't in the first archive top example), then we have unnamed variables. For those, we can't tell the code "give me the value of the variable named '<name>'"; the variable doesn't have a name, since we didn't give it one. All we can do is tell the code: "Code, give us the first variable", and the code will give us whatever the first variable we gave it was. Now, we can mix and match the two: in one of the above examples, I have {{User:Kdoskapfkdpsllad/d/c|g|a=c}} written. So, the stuff before the first | character still tells us what template we're using: in this case, it's whatever's at User:Kdoskapfkdpsllad/d/c. After the first | character, we have two different parameters. (Different parameters are separated by more | characters.) The first parameter, or the stuff between the pair of |s, is just "g"; since there are no equals signs, "g" becomes the value of the first unnamed parameter. After the second | character, we have "a=c"; here we do have an equals sign, so this parameter's name becomes "a" (the stuff before the equals sign) and its value becomes "c". So, when the code is going through its thing, and we ask it: "Code, give me the value of the parameter named 'a'" (which, in the code, we would write as {{{a|}}}), the code knows to give us "c", since that's the value of that named variable. "g" is an unnamed variable, though, so we can't ask for it directly; instead, all we can do is say: "Code, give me the value of the first unnamed parameter" (which, in the code, we would write as {{{1|}}}. Only then will the code know to give us "g".
      So, on User:Kdoskapfkdpsllad/d, this person writes two things: {{/c|1}} and {{/c|2}}. The same rules apply: for each of these things, the stuff before the | tells us which template we're using ("/c" is just a shorthand for "User:Kdoskapfkdpsllad/d/c"). The stuff after the | are the parameters. But, again, there are no equal signs here, so there are no named parameters; all there is is a single unnamed parameter for each one; the first one, this unnamed parameter is given the value of "1", and in the second, the unnamed parameter is given the value of "2". So when, in the code, we ask, "Code, give us the value of the parameter named 'a'", the code can't find the parameter named "a", so it just shrugs its hypothetical shoulders and doesn't give us anything. And because, in this template, we need the parameter named "a" to have the value of either "b" or "c" to try to do anything, we stop, and we don't do anything at all (which is why that page User:Kdoskapfkdpsllad/d is blank if you go to the final page, even though there's stuff you can see when you go to edit the page; the code tried to do something, but because it wasn't given the right variables, it couldn't, and output nothing). So, I don't know if that helped at all, but I tried; now I can go drown my sorrows. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

5

OK, I got through the first third, some of which I sorta knew already. I'll save the rest for tomorrow, since it's late and I'm not on the west coast, and I have to get up tomorrow morning. Thanks WK for the lesson: I'll finish tomorrow. You're a good man--don't drink too much. And none of that cheap stuff. Drmies (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That... that actually made a lot of sense. I learned more about template syntax in a few minutes than in the past year. WK, is there anything you're not holyshitballs-amazing at!? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep, WK does not suck donkey balls. I'm speaking metaphorically--the gods only know what he does in his free time after drowning his sorrow. I'm sending a few Nick Cave CDs your way, so you'll realize there's always people that have it worse than you. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, not sucking donkey balls. Truly, the highest praise anyone could ever hope to receive. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
WK, the intricacies of syntax will have to wait a moment: I bumped into a strange thingy. Check out this edit--it's incorrect, since that's how the source spells it (I'm looking at it), but I can't undo it, it has to be done manually. Why? (I'm going to change it by hand already.) I had the same problem with this one. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably because the edits that occurred between then and now were similar enough to have caused an edit conflict. That is to say, if your reversion of that edit were to happen at the same time as the other edits that have already happened, you would've gotten an edit conflict. That's my guess, anyway; I haven't even tried to look at the edit conflict detection code--I'm afraid of what I might find--so I don't really know what it does. I'd assume that that's what happens, but you know what they say when you assume. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm a bit in the dark about your last statement. I mean, I know what they mean when they talk about your assumptions, but what do they say about mine? I thought they were writ down as canon law immediately. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't keep those. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
You're a good man, Writ Keeper. I hope you're nobody's sock cause I kind of trust you. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion

Pls undelete the article.. Johncongo i want to write on it properly! Latertinsna 02:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latertinsna (talk • contribs) 02:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. I've explained several times now what the problem with the old article is; it does not seem like the situation has changed. If you really think that Johncongo is notable (by which we mean he has been covered in some depth by multiple reliable sources that are completely independent of Johncongo himself), then you can try writing a draft article, as outlined at WP:DRAFTS; it should probably be rewritten anyway, rather than being based on the old versions of the article. But based on a brief search, it looks like nothing has changed; I still don't think that Johncongo is notable, and I don't see substance for any claim of importance or significance that would allow an article on him to avoid speedy deletion. Wikipedia is not supposed to have articles on everyone. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

?

I write "?" in the title of the message because i'm not quite sure how to title it, if i titled it "Personal attack" i would be accused of being holier-than-thou, but what do you make of this (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#More_matter_for_.28internal.29_tears)? I tried to avoid deliberately biased info from "making it" to several articles related to S.L. Benfica by a die-hard fan, was taunted/provoked like crazy for it, and then this guy Panhead2014, who won't stop until i (and others, but i speak for myself) am blocked, goes into the page of this other person and offers him his undying support (all the "battle" seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:188.81.115.107)?! If not a personal attack, what is it? I am a horrible editor/person for wanting to improve articles and/or fighting vandalism?! In one case, the anon user went as far as vandalizing Beto (Portuguese footballer, born 1982)'s name, then taunts me when i confronted him about it, and he gets a pat on the back ("Stay strong", says Panhead) and i'm an animal?!

Seeing the lack of action (users that are not admins tried to reach out and ask him to please do not encourage disruptive edits, they were summarily reverted - User:MYS77 was also severely insulted), fair enough. I have followed, like i told Mies, your advice and let things cool off by: 1 - stopping all conversation with Mr. Panhead ("harass" him, like he says) after he banned me from his page and stopped editing in his articles of choice; 2 - doing the same with the anon user, will NEVER again edit in Benfica-related articles, but i guess i should also be thankful i was not only insulted but also BLOCKED, that's kind of the aftertaste!

Kind regards to you, as always --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Vasco, I really am, but I just...I'm tired. And not just in the sleep-deprived sense. I just can't keep doing this. It's not you, you're just a piece of the puzzle, but I just can't muster the wherewithal to keep doing this kind of thing. I'll probably write something more official later, but I felt bad that I haven't responded to you and wanted to drop you at least some sort of note to let you know that I don't mean to ignore you. I'm sorry. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand you, fully and earnestly. That's OK, you have always helped me greatly, we'll just leave it be then and, when the time comes, i'll replace the "semi-retired" banner with the "retired" one because i'm also very tired (you have no idea, but serves me right, both of the ghastly run-ins have taken place after 13 July 2014, when i said i was leaving originally, why did i not my dear god?), all the users who have treated me like a wiki-friend i'll always miss them (i assume they know who they are), to all the ones that have pulled the stunts you have, failed to accept my apologies and taunted me to top it, a big "fuck you"!

I also think that User:Gringoladomenega and User:MYS77, the other two guys that Panhead is trying to wikieviscerate, are big enough to defend themselves, so i should stop with this silly attitude of writing in this and that page as their lawyer, whatever will wikibe will wikibe. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help AL. Writ, everything that Vasco said before is true, I was harrassed too by Panhead (you can see the edit history of his talk page to confirm it). Even when I was talking politely and calmly with him, he only insulted me as a response. I'll not even try to talk with this type of person anymore. Thanks, MYS77 ✉ 02:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Reaction of User talk:GoPurpleNGold24 to the message User talk:Panhead2014 posted in the former's page, and my subsequent question "What do you think of his attitude?": "He/she looks like trouble", i'm very pleased with that outcome, only thing left is for the anon user that taunted me to react likewise, but since that will only happen when pigs fly i'll have to Bob Crane that one (in this case one down in the count, "one in two ain't bad").

CASE CLOSED as far as i'm concerned, won't bother anyone anymore. Goodbye my friend. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting that silly error. Still new at these things, but learning... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup, no worries. I still get that template wrong at times (I keep wanting to write {{unblock declined| ... |reason= ... }} instead of {{unblock reviewed| ... |decline= ... }}. And for the life of me, I can never remember which one is |status= and which one is |result= in the {{archive top}} template. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Pls Request for undeletion or open of Johncongo

Can you help me undelete or open the article as i will like to create it properly 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Johncongo

Latertinsna 10:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

An important message about renaming users

Dear Writ Keeper,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

No love

Do you have some weird NSA script running on this here talk page? I cain't seem to be able to leave you no WikiLove. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Enable/disable showing Wikilove for other users under "Editing" tab in Preferences. Is yours enabled, little Drmies? Affectionate Bishzilla just enabled hers! (But Bishonen will have none of it.) bishzilla ROARR!! 16:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC).
Huh. When did they make that opt-out? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Update: there is something wrong with the love on this page. Some script indeed? Bishzilla heart of gold, just attempt send pie to Writ Keeper, won't work. :-( bishzilla ROARR!! 16:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC).
Thanks for the notional pies, but I think Wikilove is broken everywhere. I can't send kittens to any of the people I've tried, including the eminent Bishzilla, even after disabling all my personal scripts. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Judging by edit filter 423, there haven't been any Wikiloves sent out from anyone in nearly 24 hours, so I'm guessing it's a wider problem than just us. I've posted to VPT about it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, me again.

Hi Writ. Hope you've been having a good summer, unpestered by malcontents demanding script-tweaks and other coding modifications. That is, as you've probably guessed already, about to change... but this should be a fairly simple request thing to implement, since it's just a (I think) small modification to an existing script.

We have the extraordinarily useful User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js script, which enables quick closure of AFD discussions with comments, and also does the donkey work of actually deleting or updating the articles under discussion and their relevant talkpages. I was wondering whether you could adapt this into a version that does the same job at MFD - it would go a long way towards clearing the regular backlogs there if there was a script that enabled admins to implement their closures in a single click like this, instead of the multiple edits currently needed - for those of us (like yours truly) who have fairly long loading times, the attraction is obvious. Pretty please?

Don't let me drag you away from your autoping script, though - it looks fascinating. By which I mean, I have no idea what it does or how it works, but the colour scheme is nice, and I love what you've done with the indents. I expect I'll install it as soon as you're done, regardless.

All the best, Yunshui 雲水 13:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Afterthought: having a similar thing for TFD might be a good idea, too. Yunshui 雲水 13:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I remember asking about a year ago if WK had any interest in making the other existing XfD close scripts (TfD, CfD, MfD, RfD, MRV) Vector-compatible but it seems to be a task thta requires more work than I thought. I'd love to see it happen also, though. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It's kinda a lot of work. "Simple" is relative, and in this case it probably doesn't really apply. Mr. Z-man's script doesn't use JQuery, which sucks, because trying to read the code makes my eyes bleed, and I'd need to reimplement it all in JQuery, in addition to modifying it for the other XfDs. I'll take a look though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Didn't realise that. I'd hate to make your eyes bleed (I tried coming up with an image to illustrate that, but eeewww; not an image search that I'll be repeating...) so don't put yourself out - I've managed without it for this long. Yunshui 雲水 18:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Protection of Flow pages

Hi Writ Keeper, no worries, I won't reprotect the pages or issue warnings to you or anything :-) I just protected these pages because it is the only (limited) way to stop them. The WMF has implemented a new kind of pages that can't be deleted, moved, or properly administrated (rollback, undo,... all don't exist here). Protection was the only way I saw to stop this. This may not have been in the protection policy, but then again, things like Flow pages (or in general undeletable pages) didn't exist in the protection policy. IAR applied, in my opinion. Fram (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Arright. I (obviously) don't agree with the protection, but I can respect it. Certainly, the Teahouse page in particular looks at least somewhat sketchy; I'm not as attached to the Teahouse as I used to be, but I feel like I would've heard if there was a consensus to ask for a talk page. Certainly the lack of warning was a bad move on the WMF's part, and the assumption that they wanted newbies directed to the page was reasonable, even if incorrect.
But I'm generally of the opinion that IAR should virtually never apply to admin actions; in my philosophy, the major thing that allows IAR to work is that anyone can undo an IAR action if it's not a good idea; obviously, admin actions don't have nearly the same checks and balances in that respect. But that's just me.
Anyway, my real goal here was deescalation; I know that reverting admin actions isn't always the best way to do that, but I figured that the less the WMF has to poke us with, the better. I guess you could say I trusted your levelheadedness more than that of some of the WMF people. And I can respect that, from a different point of view, you were trying to do the same. Peace, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

InlineDiffs script license

Hi!

I wanted to say (once again) how great your inline diff scripts are. Wiki Education Foundation is working on an improvement to the course page software that will incorportate inline diffs into the activity feed for users who are part of a course. (You can see the prototype here). Since the developer is starting from your script, we need to know which license to use for that part of the code. If you're not particular about it, I would suggest the MIT License, simply since that's what we'd probably use for the entire project.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd never thought about it, particularly, but I would've assumed that, as with any other Wikipedia contribution, the code is currently licensed jointly under CC-BY-SA and GFDL. But if that's not sufficient, sure, the MIT license is fine. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! Yeah, it's definitely currently CC-BY-SA + GFDL by default, but as I understand it, those aren't particularly compatible with many free software licenses when applied to code.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
One other thing: would you like to be credited as 'Writ Keeper', or some other way?--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Writ Keeper is fine. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Writ_Keeper/Archives/12&oldid=1142683991"