User talk:Ned Scott: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:49, 28 July 2008 editNichalp (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers28,407 edits →Re:User:JohnLeoWalsh: new section← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:07, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk \| contribs)Bots3,135,762 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery
(680 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{INDEX}}
	{{User:Ned Scott/header}}		{{User:Ned Scott/header}}
	{{User talk:Ned Scott/archive}}		{{User talk:Ned Scott/archive}}
			== "List of Lost episodes/Use of images" listed at ] ==
			]
			A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 18:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

	== ~~Proposal~~ to ~~change~~ ] ==		== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
			]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (])

			== CfD nomination at {{Section link\|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1#Category:WikiProject X members}} ==
	Notifying you directly because you took part in the preceding discussion. Please see ]. Thanks. ] (]) 06:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''{{Section link\|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1#Category:WikiProject X members}}''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd mass notify--> Thank you. ]] 09:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
	== How much bigger? ==

			== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
	Could you offer some examples of how larger images or alternative placement has been done? I've noticed that in another article I am working on, ], had a bunch of images down the right sight of the page, which tended to screw up how the page displayed (edit links, etc). Now that might be a browser issue (I use Safari), but I am interested in building FA articles, which would be read with all types of browsers and connection types (the latter referring to lad times). Input? - ] (]) 22:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
	:Ned, short of reloading larger images, how do I make the gunpowder images larger in the article? - ] (]) 04:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
	::<nowiki>]</nowiki> the bold value controls the size. Is that what you were talking about? -- ]
	:::Well, I tried that , but there was no image size increase. - ] (]) 15:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
	::::I guess it won't go any larger than the original. You'd have to upload a copy that was larger for it to work. -- ] 20:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	== :o ==
			<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
	Ahoy, Ned! - ]] 09:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
	:Ahoy! -- ] 01:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2023\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
	Ahahaha. Thanks for sticking up for ]. The bot approval dudes seriously need to find their sense of humor. o.o - ]] 05:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	== re:CindeRiley / Skate-Gate ==

			If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
	Thanks for the reminder. It's been deleted. Best, --] (]) 07:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

			</div>
	== ] ==
			</div>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1187131902 -->

			== Reason for revert of syntax error fixes? ==
	No probs mate, even the admin who closed the AfD missed him bundled in there! Thanks for the heads-up anyways --<b>]</b><sup>]]</sup> 15:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

			Is there a reason that you just did a bunch of reverts , of bot edits that fixed dozens of syntax errors in your talk page archives? – ] (]) 19:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	== About your message ===
			:Yes -- ] 19:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
			::That is not a helpful answer. Please provide an explanation. Those errors were fixed by an approved bot task. If there were errors in the bot edits, please specify what the bot did that you view as incorrect. You have restored errors of a couple of types that had been completely eliminated from the English Misplaced Pages, so your pages are likely to draw attention from editors who work to fix those errors. – ] (]) 19:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
			:::I understand, but do not wish to explain further. These are my talk page archives. Maybe I want to archive incorrect formatting? Maybe I'm just a jerk? Maybe I don't trust people to edit those pages for any reason, especially when they ignore the notice to not edit the pages and didn't bother to ask me about it. The reasons are mysterious. They're marked as archives and with nobots. -- ] 19:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
			::::Since it's not ], you should supply a valid reason. ] (]) 19:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
			:::::I'm not going to debate this. Leave my talk archives alone. -- ] 20:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

			Oh my god, I just took a closer look at what exactly you guys are doing, and it's not even fixing anything. You can't tell me that
	First, yes, Betacommand and I did argue about an image I placed on my userspace. Yes,I got totally incivil about it, and yes, I got blocked for it. I admitt that freely. I also admitt that I deserved to be blocked. I also draw your attetion to the fact that this is the first post I've posted since the whole drama with Betacommand began. <br /><p>
	Your "explanation", on my page, was pretty good, but not entirely accurate. Betacommand has three known accounts, Betacommand, Betacommandbot and Betacommand2. The account he was blocked for (for socking) was none of the above, it was a totally different name. In particular, he went to the BOTS group and reverted Locker Cole, who he'd previously reverted under his name . He got blocked for it and as an explanation stated that he was attempting to start over as a new user.<br /><p>
	Starting over is fine, it's allowable, however, when one starts over, don't they normally also allow their old acoounts to vanish ala, right to vanish ? He didn't, he kept he previous three accounts opened. Wouldnt' that strike you as a bit odd, considering he wanted to start over ? Why not just invoke "right to vanish" and start over ? <br /><p>
	In addition to this, he's edit-warred on the Bots group , has edit warred and used incivil edit summaries, even though he's been warned not to do so ....and the list goes on. '''YES''' I know what he does is difficult and he takes a load of shit from people for doing it. However, that doesn't exempt him from following known policy, like Ignore and deny
	or civil.<p>
	Bottom line here is, his hands are far from clean, and his latest attempt to keep his RFCU out of sight, in my opinion, is nothing more than ]. <p>
	Thank you. <br /> <span style="font-family:Gill Sans MT">]]</span> 16:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

			*<nowiki><font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font></nowiki>
	:It's pretty normal for editors to continue to edit for a while with their original account while building edits with the new one. In fact, he could keep both of them as long as they didn't edit the same pages. When he made the edit with the other account it was by mistake. It wouldn't make sense for him to infentitally make that edit, because it obviously showed who he was.

			being changed to
	:I never said his hands were clean. What I'm saying to you is that it is not alright to just assume someone is dishonest simply because they have some civility issues. Stealing doesn't make someone a murderer. He might be a jerk, he might be an asshole, but he's not dishonest.

			*<nowiki>]]</nowiki>
	:I didn't even know what your dispute was with Beta, and I don't care what it is. That's completely besides the point. You think he's guilty of something, without any realistic evidence, simply because he's been rude before. That's the bottom line, and that's what I take issue with. -- ] 04:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

			is doing anything necessary or fixing some kind of formatting issue. -- ] 20:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	==Invitation to intervene==
	]. The ] read (from right to left) "敬和" (''Kei-Wa''), literally "Respect and harmony".]]
	Please consider looking over a very difficult controversy at ]. My single sentence edit to the second paragraph of ] has been reverted several times thus far; and the demonstrably futile defense of that single sentence has relied on the in-line citation which accompanies it. The talk page defense of that edit is marred by claims that I have been uncivil and that I've engaged in personal attacks. See for yourself how ] ] are used as threats, as blunt instruments which are intended to thwart any hope that an exchange of views can lead to a constructive outcome. If you choose to intervene, I would ask that you bear in mind my view that ] seems worth trying in a situation which is rather more serious than can be easily grasped without a passing familiarity with Japanese history, modern Japanese constitutional law, and the international naval treaties of the 1920s and 1930s. Maybe you will appreciate the issues in an instant; but I wonder if determining the distinctions beween "correct" and "not-quite-correct" might become secondary to the ways in which ordinary Misplaced Pages policies are illuminated by the exchange of views here?

			:]: ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ] are among numerous Wikipedians working diligently to eradicate lint errors from Misplaced Pages who have edited one or more of your talk page archives. The edit about which you are godsmacked is a correction of an ] lint error. The Wikimedia software that makes Misplaced Pages work preprocesses or parses Wiki markup (Wikitext) with a tool called a linter. Around 2019, Wikimedia replaced the old linter with a new linter. Under the old linter, {{tag\|font}} immediately surrounding a wikilink or external link behaved as if the font tag were inside the link. That means that such font tags would override link colors. The new linter doen't work this way, and font color tags around a wikilink or external link don't override default link colors. This edit restores the display of ]'s signature to its original appearance, as everybody saw it, until the new linter came in. ] is considered a High Priority lint error, and we completely eradicated it from English Misplaced Pages. The only pages that have it now are your talk page archives.
	In short, without any effort to give too fine a point to my words: "Who's kidding who?"--] (]) 05:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
			:Another High Priority lint error is ]. The most common example of this error is a {{tag\|small\|o}} tag closed with another {{tag\|small\|o}} instead of {{tag\|small\|c}}. The old linter usually fixed this error silently, but the new linter regards this as two unclosed {{tag\|small\|o}} tags, which means that everything following these tags is displayed double-small, all the way to the end of the page, unless the leak is contained by a table or some other structure. We completely eradicated ] from English Misplaced Pages. The only pages that have it now are your talk page archives.
			:] edited one of of your talk page archives to correct "buy" to "but" in his own comment. That's not unreasonable, but it might have been better to mark it up as <code><nowiki><del>buy</del> <ins>but</ins></nowiki></code>, i.e. <del>buy</del> <ins>but</ins>.
			:There is a theory held by a small number of Wiki editors that archives are a historical record that must never be changed. That theory is incorrect. On Misplaced Pages, we edit talk page archives all the time for a variety of reasons, including copyright violations, renaming of image files, and, yes, lint fixes. This is explicitly encouraged at ]. We have been doing this for years. Most users appreciate it. A few users question it, but nearly all of those come to respect it after we explain it. I hope you will come to respect and appreciate it also. Cheers! —] (]) 22:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
			::It's an archive, and is already full of red links, missing images, regarding topics that lack context, and more. I don't agree that this is something that needs to be done. Regardless of the situation, bots still need to follow the nobots tag.
			::That being said, seeing as this is something that is showing up on a report, that means you guys will never stop bugging me about this. So I give up. -- ] 23:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
			:::I see you have already self-reverted your reversions of lint fix edits of your talk page archive pages. Thank you for your cooperation. Cheers! —] (]) 01:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

			== Invitation to participate in a research ==
	== List of episode summary size ==

			Hello,
	Since when is 100-200 words too small for a plot summary inside a list of episodes? We allow 400 words for an individual article, which has more detail because it has enough OOU information to support it. ] uses the 100-200 word limit and is just fine. Most television shows, next to maybe ''Lost'' which has far too many storylines lines taking place in any one episode, do not need more than 200 words to summarize the basic element of the episode. We have to remember that they are in an LOE for a reason, because they could not support themselves in an individual article; they don't need the plot coverage of an individual article if they cannot provide the OOU coverage of an individual article. ] ] 05:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
	:It's more of a middle ground kind of thing, for those who think there should be episode articles and those who don't. Plus, it should be based more on how long the episode runs, since we have shows that run in 15, 30, and 60 minute chunks (minus about a third for commercials and such). -- ] 05:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
	::We don't even base movies on that. If I can summarize '']'' (a 2.5 hour long movie, with a hell of a lot going on) into a 700+ word plot summary, then a 42 min. long episode can be summarized into a 200 word plot summary. ] ] 11:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::You don't see the problem with giving the same advice for a 11 minute show and a 42 minute show? -- ] 06:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

			The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
	::::What 11 minute shows are there? What I do think is that anyone with a list of episodes from an 11 minute show that has 350 words summarizing their plots would have some serious detail issues. What you have is "100-350 words", flat. That means you are saying that this "11 minute show" can use 350 words to summarize their plot? I've looked at several recent FLs and 200 words seems to be a stretch for some of them - and by that I mean that they aren't even using that number. ''The O.C.'' has like 60 words, and they summarize the eps rather succinctly. I've read the ''Lost'' summaries, and even if I think they need more words than most shows, I can still see where I can cut some of the wordy descriptions down. Plots should be kept to the bare facts, not elaborations on what happened. We aren't here to entertain, or provide a substitution for watching the show. The reason they are in an LOE format is because they fail notability and cannot support their own page...so why are we saying that it's ok for them to have a plot summary the length of what we would allow for an individual article? ] ] 11:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

			You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
	:::::], ], ], etc. I didn't put down the 350 part, that was someone else. I was going to try to think of some other way to word it.

			The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
	:::::I don't really disagree with you. When {{tl\|episode list}} was made I specifically made the summary field "ShortSummary" instead of just "summary" to discourage detailed summaries. I'm just reluctant to be so strict about it. -- ] 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

			Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
	:Well, I think it always depends on the show itself, and who is writing the plot summary. If I'm writing, it's probably been stripped to the bare essentials of the plot elements in the episode. Others tend to provide more details, some that may or may not be pertinent to the summary. I understand your concern about being "too strict", but I also don't want it to be so ambiguous that someone reads "short summary" and then writes a 400 word summary with the rationale that they could have written the summary with 800 words. ] ] 01:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

			Kind Regards,
	== Re: DRV close of PIR ==

			]
	Then I shall go ahead and make the draft. -- ] 20:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
	:Although, in the future there's really no need to close the DRV for your reasons. Reviewing the deletion does include issues such as user drafts. I've seen tons of MfDs because people have asserted that a certain AfD would prevent even a user draft, or any kind of article recreation. And regardless of a draft being created first or not, a DRV is generally required in controversial situations like this to create any new article, such as one with merged content, which would make it substantially different from the old version. <s>No offense, but I can't help but wonder if the real reason you closed it was just to shut people up about it.</s> -- ] 20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
	::Heh, seeing my own comment just now, getting people like me to shut up about it wouldn't be such a bad idea :) My apologies. -- ] 20:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

			<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
	:::It's kind of nice when people have the conversation all on their own :) --] (]) 07:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 -->

			== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
	== re: Akimichi clan ==

			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	I believe that to be an accurate statement of the debate results. There was objection to soft redirecting to Wikia as it is not a Misplaced Pages sister project. I'd note that ] specifically calls it out as for use with "different Wikimedia projects". Aervanath's summed it nicely with his statement of "if the content wasn't notable or verifiable to stay in Misplaced Pages, or any of its sister projects, then it's not notable or verifiable enough for us to redirect to". By the way, my statement was specific to this closure and was not meant globally (as not all cases are the same). Let me know if you have more questions. Thanks. --] (]) 11:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
			<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2024\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	== Come on ned... ==

			If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
	Did you REALLY have to resort to an F-bomb in your ANI comment? Really defeats your whole purpose. Refactor, please? ] (]) 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

			</div>
	:Thanks :) Much appreciated. ] (]) 02:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
			</div>

			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->
	::No problem. -- ] 02:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

	{{talkback\|Aervanath\|Akimichi clan}}

	== Apology accepted ==

	If so, I accept. I must confess I was rather taken aback by the harsh tone of your comment, and I'm glad to see it was a misunderstanding. -- ] (]) 11:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

	== Re:User:JohnLeoWalsh ==

	I'm not sure what the fuss was about. The page was clear patent nonsense. It's been some years that I have closed an AFD, so I guess I'm not 100% tuned to the goings on these days. Has the policy changed in anyways? ] ] 17:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:07, 19 November 2024

I'm not that active these days, but I'm still around. Feel free to send me an extra poke here or via e-mail for anything, trivial or important (or to just say hi).
E-mail: Special:Emailuser/Ned Scott

Archives • ℹ
1. 02/06 - 05/06 2. 06/06 3. 07/06 - 08/06 4. 08/06 - 09/06 5. 10/06 - 11/06 6. 11/06 - 01/07 7. 02/07 - 03/07 8. 04/07 - 05/07	9. 05/07 - early 08/07 10. 08/07 - 10/07 11. 11/07 - mid 02/08 12. mid 02/08 - mid 05/08 13. mid 05/08 - mid 07/08 14. mid 07/08 - 11/08 15. 12/08 - 05/09 16. 06/09 - 04/11 17. 05/11 - 06/18

"List of Lost episodes/Use of images" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of Lost episodes/Use of images. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 11#List of Lost episodes/Use of images until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vahurzpu (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cocktaildb recipe

Template:Cocktaildb recipe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. —¿philoserf? (talk)

CfD nomination at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkl talk 09:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 2023 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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reason for revert of syntax error fixes?

Is there a reason that you just did a bunch of reverts like this, of bot edits that fixed dozens of syntax errors in your talk page archives? – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- Ned Scott 19:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not a helpful answer. Please provide an explanation. Those errors were fixed by an approved bot task. If there were errors in the bot edits, please specify what the bot did that you view as incorrect. You have restored errors of a couple of types that had been completely eliminated from the English Misplaced Pages, so your pages are likely to draw attention from editors who work to fix those errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand, but do not wish to explain further. These are my talk page archives. Maybe I want to archive incorrect formatting? Maybe I'm just a jerk? Maybe I don't trust people to edit those pages for any reason, especially when they ignore the notice to not edit the pages and didn't bother to ask me about it. The reasons are mysterious. They're marked as archives and with nobots. -- Ned Scott 19:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Since it's not yours, you should supply a valid reason. Gonnym (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate this. Leave my talk archives alone. -- Ned Scott 20:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh my god, I just took a closer look at what exactly you guys are doing, and it's not even fixing anything. You can't tell me that

]]

being changed to

]]

is doing anything necessary or fixing some kind of formatting issue. -- Ned Scott 20:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Ned Scott: とある白い猫, WOSlinkerBot, Qwerfjkl, Tholme, Izno, CommonsDelinker, Jonesey95 and Gonnym are among numerous Wikipedians working diligently to eradicate lint errors from Misplaced Pages who have edited one or more of your talk page archives. The edit about which you are godsmacked is a correction of an Old behaviour of link-wrapping font tags lint error. The Wikimedia software that makes Misplaced Pages work preprocesses or parses Wiki markup (Wikitext) with a tool called a linter. Around 2019, Wikimedia replaced the old linter with a new linter. Under the old linter, ... immediately surrounding a wikilink or external link behaved as if the font tag were inside the link. That means that such font tags would override link colors. The new linter doen't work this way, and font color tags around a wikilink or external link don't override default link colors. This edit restores the display of Krimpet's signature to its original appearance, as everybody saw it, until the new linter came in. Old behaviour of link-wrapping font tags is considered a High Priority lint error, and we completely eradicated it from English Misplaced Pages. The only pages that have it now are your talk page archives.

Another High Priority lint error is Multiple unclosed formatting tags. The most common example of this error is a  tag closed with another  instead of . The old linter usually fixed this error silently, but the new linter regards this as two unclosed  tags, which means that everything following these tags is displayed double-small, all the way to the end of the page, unless the leak is contained by a table or some other structure. We completely eradicated Multiple unclosed formatting tags from English Misplaced Pages. The only pages that have it now are your talk page archives.

David Levy edited one of of your talk page archives to correct "buy" to "but" in his own comment. That's not unreasonable, but it might have been better to mark it up as <del>buy</del> <ins>but</ins>, i.e. ~~buy~~ but.

There is a theory held by a small number of Wiki editors that archives are a historical record that must never be changed. That theory is incorrect. On Misplaced Pages, we edit talk page archives all the time for a variety of reasons, including copyright violations, renaming of image files, and, yes, lint fixes. This is explicitly encouraged at WP:Linter. We have been doing this for years. Most users appreciate it. A few users question it, but nearly all of those come to respect it after we explain it. I hope you will come to respect and appreciate it also. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It's an archive, and is already full of red links, missing images, regarding topics that lack context, and more. I don't agree that this is something that needs to be done. Regardless of the situation, bots still need to follow the nobots tag.

That being said, seeing as this is something that is showing up on a report, that means you guys will never stop bugging me about this. So I give up. -- Ned Scott 23:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I see you have already self-reverted your reversions of lint fix edits of your talk page archive pages. Thank you for your cooperation. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 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) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)