Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:17, 10 December 2010

Hello, and welcome to my talk page. If I post on a talk page please respond there. I'll be watching it for a while. No need to {{talkback}} me unless you think I missed it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here (unless you request otherwise, here or on your talkpage), so please watch this page. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Hug bug

Hiya. Last month you did a great Twinkle fix, to add (talk) - in red or blue - when TW was used to revert an edit.

(You fixed it with this TW edit.)

Well, I was wondering if your silky skills extended to Huggle as well?

Note that Huggle reverts don't show the (talk) suffix.

Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle doesn't because the talk link was removed from its config a couple of days ago.
Can't tell you why, I don't find the discussion hinted at in the edit summary. Feel free to initiate one at WP:Huggle/Config. Amalthea 10:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. - I'll pursue it, using your leads. (Twinkle 1, Huggle 0!) Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I thought I'd start by asking the editor, at here - in case you wanted to track any developments. Trafford09 (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Was reverted now anyway. Amalthea 22:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ooh yes - ta for pointing that out. I'll sit tight for now, in that case. Trafford09 (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

OK then - next up: GLOO. It doesn't show the (talk) currently e.g. here. Any ideas? Ta, Trafford09 (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Ale jrb/Scripts/iglooSettings.js. Talk to Ale jrb. Amalthea 12:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Right - will do - ta. 86.5.22.73 (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Easyblock

Hi Amalthea - I see you've been the most recent updater of Easyblock.js. Do you know if the original author has stopped adding to it, or just busy IRL? I left a note requesting an enhancement (removal of categories like username concern when blocking) which went unanswered. Now I was going to go back with nother suggestion (to add causeblock to the username blocking reasons) but I see that Animum doesn't edit much any more. Should I take a stab at it myself? Are you versed enough in the script that you could add either of them? Should I just shut up and do causeblocks manually (as I do now)? All suggestions appreciated. Thanks.  7  07:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What's a causeblock? Usename blocks are by and large unnecessary and/or excessive, in my opinion, so I don't know the first thing about it.
Animum would certainly not mind any extensions to the script if such extensions are generally useful, so if you want just go for it. I can try as well, but I can't promise having time for it before Christmas. :\
Amalthea 11:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I made the change myself. Seems to work fine, but feel free to revert if you see any problems. Thanks.  7  08:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks great. And now people will come to you if they want further additions. :) Amalthea 09:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 7  23:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have a look at it, could you check the syntax as well? The new Firefox JS engine (JägerMonkey) does not seem to like it and I cannot get it to work properly. The error console says

Error: UrlParameters is not defined
Source File: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Animum/easyblock.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript
Line: 491

but I have no idea as to why that is. Regards SoWhy 12:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Try it now (after bypassing your browser cache). Amalthea 11:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, no error messages anymore and it seems to work! Thanks! :-)

Btw, on a similar problem, I get the following error in the error console:

Error: QueryString is not defined
Source File: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Ioeth/friendlytag.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript
Line: 46

Since you are also familiar with Twinkle/Friendly, could you have a look at this as well? Regards SoWhy 11:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you try now, again bypassing your browser cache first? Only touched friendlytag, the others might need the same treatment. And sorry for offloading testing to you, most of the extensions I use don't work with Firefox 4.0 yet. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 15:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The welcoming seems to work but I still get the following errors in the console:

Error: twAddPortletLink is not defined
Source File: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Ioeth/friendlytalkback.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript
Line: 48
Error: QueryString is not defined
Source File: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Ioeth/friendlytag.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript
Line: 46

Don't worry about offloading though, I'm more than happy to help with that :-) Regards SoWhy 09:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

September done, now october

Thanks for doing September. I have just archived October so when you have the time could you do October? Cheers. Simply south (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Amalthea 16:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about our weather, especially as it started in November. Here come's the snow again, falling on my head like a memory, falling on my head like a new emotion.... Simply south (talk)

Twinkle misfire

Hello, I apologize for mistakenly using Twinkle to undo your edits to Misplaced Pages:Twinkle/doc. I was looking at the Twinkle functions and clicked by accident. I think I have rectified the problem and restored your edits to the page, but could you double check? Sorry once again. TehGrauniad (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, happens. :) Amalthea 09:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Skoojal SPI

You worked on a recent SPI that turned out to be Skoojal. I've just posted a new SPI for Skoojal himself. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Skoojal, in case you have any insight or recollection of the details.   Will Beback  talk  07:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I contacted the user and am satisfied that it is a different person.   Will Beback  talk  09:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright. :) Amalthea 09:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Better Luck Tomorrow

The IP is at it again, slow moving this time.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Protected, and left a comment at the talk page. Amalthea 10:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Theserialcomma2

I have reblocked this account for harassment. Please contact me via email if you have any questions about this. Jehochman 12:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No questions, harassment is a different issue, one that I deliberately left open. Abuse of multiple accounts I still don't see (despite his insinuations/threats). Amalthea 13:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He has clearly stated himself that he has created a sockpuppet after his main account was blocked . - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Loads of folks make such boasts without coming through, and with multiple CUs having looked into it it's a rather useless tag, but suit yourself. Just make sure you never claim that he actually has abused multiple accounts since that might be a libelous claim (depending on where you live, probably, but IANAL). Amalthea 18:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Burpleson, the user has been indeffed. There is nothing else to do here. Jehochman 18:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

hello

hellooooooooooooo, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.106.192.63 (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

theserialcomma

i scrambled the passwords long ago so i am posting under this account because i have no other option. it's not like i'd post under my real IP, and I can't access my old account, so the only way to defend myself is to make a new account. i'm not posting to wikipedia articles or anything, just doing this to defend myself. if this is technically abusive sockpuppetry or block evading, so be it, but i did this because i object to jehochman's latest block of me without providing any evidence. i never socked, and i didnt return to harass anyone. whether i am unblocked or kept indef'd is not important to me at this point, but i would hope that you ask jehochman for his evidence of my 'continued' harassment. there is none. i would request some diffs or evidence because there isnt any. the sockpuppetry block was incorrect, and the continued harassment block was incorrect. this has led me to making a new account since i scrambled the passwords, leaving me in this situation where now i've technically evaded a block. nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsc04 (talk • contribs) 10:22, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked this account as a self-confessed sockpuppet and reverted the changes it made to User talk:Theserialcomma, as these deleted/modified other editors' comments and talk page access had at any rate been revoked. Feel free to revert my actions if you deem them to harsh. Favonian (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

TSC, if you'd like to edit again, you have to completely avoid any interaction or mention of a certain editor you've been in long term conflict with. You must not make edits that need to be revision deleted, as you did on November 27. Finally, you must not make any derogatory remarks relating to any user's sexual orientation. If you agree to these terms, contact me or Amalthea, or the Arbitration Committee and you might be authorized to create a fresh account. These are the terms I suggest for discussion. Jehochman 15:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Theserialcomma, I think Jehochman is being very generous given the personal attack you made towards him on your talk page. (Note that he doesn't even use IRC.) After seeing his offer here, I feel I should offer an olive branch myself. It should be possible for you to recover your User:Theserialcomma account, and I suspect either Jehochman or Amalthea can advise you on how to go about it.

I am willing to forgive and forget both the on-wiki and off-wiki stuff related to our conflict. There are however a few things I would like to see from you in order to help put the past behind us and minimise the chance of any further conflicts.

First, I would like to see you acknowledge and offer an on-wiki apology for you role and actions related to the events that have transpired thus far. You don't need to go into the details of each event, I would just like to see you acknowledge your role in the larger conflict. I'm not asking you to take responsibility for the actions of the other two individuals who later became involved, but just your own role.

Second, I would like for you to voluntarily agree to avoid editing in the subject areas that I normally edit in as you didn't previously edit in those subject areas anyway (technology/computing/online communications, including IRC, etc). In exchange, I'll cull my own watchlist and remove articles in the subject areas you tended to edit in.

I want you to understand that I don't really have any say-so over any actions resulting from any discussion on the functionaries list. Whatever they decide to do with the material I submitted is pretty much out of my hands at this point. If other editors also decide a community discussion is necessary regarding your past actions before unblocking you, that is also out of my hands.

I also reserve the right to at some point create a subpage in my userspace (as other editors have done when they've been involved in past conflicts) which details our conflict, including the good, the bad, and and ugly, so that the community can both learn from and better understand what happened.

It has become quite apparent in the last month or so that you've made a lot of enemies here on Misplaced Pages who really don't like you. Going forward, I would really like to avoid us being enemies.

I also wish to apologise for my actions in this diff. As frustrated as I was, that still isn't an excuse. It was inappropriate for me to respond to you in that manner and I shouldn't have done it. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian sock investigation

Hi. I started an investigation into Asgardian's socks. I don't know why the ones from September and the one from last month closed without any apparent resolution or finding, but one of the IPs named during that one is one of the three I've named in this newest one. Someone on that page mentioned that a CU could look that investigation over and forward it to arbcom, but I don't know exactly what that means, whether it was done, and what, if any effect that had. Can you advise on how this works? One of the IPs in this newest investigation is one of the IPs mentioned in those earlier investigations. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sent you a mail. Cheers, Amalthea 15:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If a user has been banned, than any and all IPs he uses to edit from should be blocked, regardless of any assessments of "harm" caused by his edits. He is continuing his WP:OWN-type behavior, and his uncivil remarks to others. That others may edit from those IPs is irrelevant; others can simply sign in for their own accounts. The attitude that there's nothing that can be done to stop him is what allowed him to violate the site's policies for three years before he was banned and now, the same fatalistic resignation is allowing him to continue. Nightscream (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Contributions

Hello,

I've posted some information that has been reverted, and I'd like the contribution history to be deleted. I was wondering if it would be possible for you to help with this. I regret what I wrote, as I was disgruntled, and the former employer has asked for the information to be removed from the history. I'd appreciate your help.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trustingsidekick (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Has already been taken care of. Cheers, Amalthea 14:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)