| Revision as of 20:35, 2 July 2013 editBeeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,441 edits →You done it now, eh?: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:00, 4 July 2013 edit undoKudpung (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors109,127 edits →Feedback request: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 195: | Line 195: | ||
| :*I know, it's going to be ugly but as an oversighter I feel like we are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I personally feel that if they focussed on constructive criticism, as they sometimes have, instead of being assholes and outing people they could serve a valuable function. But with so many users who would rather destroy Misplaced Pages than help it and pretty much no accountability by anyone for anything that happens there I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that. ] (]) 20:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | :*I know, it's going to be ugly but as an oversighter I feel like we are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I personally feel that if they focussed on constructive criticism, as they sometimes have, instead of being assholes and outing people they could serve a valuable function. But with so many users who would rather destroy Misplaced Pages than help it and pretty much no accountability by anyone for anything that happens there I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that. ] (]) 20:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Feedback request == | |||
| Hi Beeb. As a former contributor to ], you may wish to take a look at ]. If you do, please read it carefully in order not to miss the explicit objective. Comments on its talk page. Cheers, ] (]) 01:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:00, 4 July 2013
Welcome to my talk page
I prefer to keep conversations in one place in order to make it easier to follow them. Therefore, if I have begun a conversation with you elsewhere, that is where I would prefer you reply and is probably where I will reply to you.
If you would rather communicate by email, it will expedite matters if you leave a note here to inform me you have sent an email.
Do you actually want to be blocked? I'll consider your request iff you meet my criteria, Click here to see them.
No hard feelings
As I tried to make abundantly clear in my request for opinions, I think you to be a fair administrator for the most part. I just felt that the abrupt closing of an unfinished discussion with a new question that was five minutes old without offering the chance for the questionee to respond was unfair. Misplaced Pages is not a contest to be won in my opinion, and the lack of consensus wasn't my objection to the closure, it was the brevity. I actually didn't get the opportunity to post the AN-notice as everything happened so quickly and I'm taking care of keeping my 21 month old daughter from getting hurt playing in the livingroom (she likes to pull her playcenter over on herself). I do apologize and just want to be clear that it was not intended to be a personal attack against you. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm normally the type who just accepts any apology without hesitation, but I have to tell you this sounds and looks like a cheap excuse. You had time to put down 1355 characters about my alleged abuse but no time to put {{subst:AN-notice}} on my talk page? And right after writing this you opened another thread about the close in which you backed off the accusations of abuse but still call it premature, despite the fact that literally nobody else seems to see it that way? Sorry, but your "apology" rings pretty hollow. Please, just let it go already. You must realize by now that you are harming rather than helping Shadow Crow with this approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- My apology above is sincere; if you chose not to accept it, that is your choice. this thread was a statement intend to simply inform that all is well with me and I've already left that stick in the barn. Due to load times on my end, the result of me saving my post that asks a question of another user was that it came up as discussion closed. I didn't even get time to read my post after saving before the discussion was closed, it's like trying to tell a story and getting slapped in the face mid-sentence. Anyways, I believe that was not your intent, and my apology stands for reacting instead of taking a deep breath and acting. I hope that you can assume good faith in me as I do in you and accept the apology for what it is and move on to build an encyclopedia with myself and the rest of the community. Thank you for your time. Technical 13 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- The latest thread on AN was perhaps one of the dumbest things to happen there in awhile (other than the request for TSC's topic ban to be reconsidered) - "everything is fine" is not an announcement. Even your "announcement" was qualified. I'm not sure what the heck you were thinking doing either or them, believe it or not. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) (edit conflict) @T13: And yet, in that new (2nd/3rd?) thread you've opened you propound at length with your excuses for not notifying a user, all valid, I'm sure, while failing to consider the same sort of thing might have happened to another user - and instead announcing that he "broke the rules by posting to a closed thread". Edit conflicts don't always give warnings, you know. You also failed to notify me of that thread. Really, I despair. Don't reply to me about this, I've wasted enough time on it (sorry for borrowing your page B.) Begoon 18:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- ...and I have specifically noted on AN that T13 should stop posting at AN/ANI completely for a long while ... I'm hoping this "voluntary topic ban" occurs so that it doesn't need to become formalized (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I hope that isn't necessary. I think restrictions should be a last resort, which is why I was ever in the discussion in the first place... Begoon 03:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- ...and I have specifically noted on AN that T13 should stop posting at AN/ANI completely for a long while ... I'm hoping this "voluntary topic ban" occurs so that it doesn't need to become formalized (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- My apology above is sincere; if you chose not to accept it, that is your choice. this thread was a statement intend to simply inform that all is well with me and I've already left that stick in the barn. Due to load times on my end, the result of me saving my post that asks a question of another user was that it came up as discussion closed. I didn't even get time to read my post after saving before the discussion was closed, it's like trying to tell a story and getting slapped in the face mid-sentence. Anyways, I believe that was not your intent, and my apology stands for reacting instead of taking a deep breath and acting. I hope that you can assume good faith in me as I do in you and accept the apology for what it is and move on to build an encyclopedia with myself and the rest of the community. Thank you for your time. Technical 13 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Possible Conflict of Interest issue
If it's not too much trouble, I wonder could you possibly either check out a possible conflict of interest problem that has been raised by somebody here on my Talk Page and which I'm not sure that I've handled correctly, or if you're too busy could you perhaps ask some other admin to have a look at the matter. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- The main thing in my opinion when dealing with persons with obvious COI issues is to suggest that they only suggest edits on the talk page, not make them themselves. They don't always like that idea and they don't actually have to do it, but it makes them appear more credible and willing to respect our policies. If they are slanting the article on one direction or another we have a dedicated noticeboard at WP:COIN for dealing with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Beeblebrox. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Baycrest Hill
Say, is this photo of Baycrest Hill? My memories of 1989 aren't what they used to be, understandably. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 02:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe I spoke too soon. The following photos in the set show the Spit, so I'm sure it has to be. If you can confirm, though, let me know. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 02:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- There's more houses up there now and I'm pretty sure they straightened that curve a bit, but that absolutely is Baycrest Hill. They just started a repaving project this week from here clear to the other side of Anchor Point, at the same time that Enstar is tearing up everybody's yard for the new gas line. Gonna be an interesting experience trying to drive from point A to point B this summer... Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've had nothing but "fun" dealing with the Upload Wizard on Commons, which is why I haven't uploaded too many photos lately. Then, to top it off, my laptop was stolen two months ago along with all my ongoing photo-related work. Thankfully, I have backups. I was sweating whether these photos I found on Flickr were going to upload before the library closed, but looks like I made it with minutes to spare. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 04:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- There's more houses up there now and I'm pretty sure they straightened that curve a bit, but that absolutely is Baycrest Hill. They just started a repaving project this week from here clear to the other side of Anchor Point, at the same time that Enstar is tearing up everybody's yard for the new gas line. Gonna be an interesting experience trying to drive from point A to point B this summer... Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
User:AfricaTanz
- Hi,
- You granted Reviewer rights to the above user on 9 May 2013. I am providing this update on the user's recent conduct for your information. Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you feel I need to be updated on what this user has been doing, unless it is your intent to suggest that the granting of the reviewer right was an error. If that's what you're getting at please just say so, otherwise I don't know why I would be interested in this information. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that was a bit testy. I was attempting to be "relaxed" in my approach. But if you need me to spell it out, I will be happy to. I believe you have made a serious mistake in granting this user Reviewer rights. His/her interactions with other editors are sometimes uncivil, he has attempted to intimidate other editors (eg threatening indef blocks for removing a cleanup template from an article), shows no willingness to discuss controversial edits, engages in edit wars, and attempts to bait other editors. I discovered this all through one of his/her uncivil edit summaries I found when perusing Recent Changes: I have had no previous involvement with any of these editors.
- I would have listed the diffs here, but I'm really not inclined to use up any more of my time after your response above. You're an admin: look them up. The link I already provided you to the 3rr Report is a good start. Regards Taroaldo ✉ 20:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Here's what is missing from this conversation: How does any of this relate to the reviewer user right? Did any of this misbehavior involve reviewing at all? If it did not, how would removing the right help anything?
- Look, it's not a badge or a symbol of rank, just a tool for keeping vandalism out of articles that protected by pending changes, and it does not appear to be involved in this edit warring incident at all. I did look, you see, and I failed to see the connection. If you can show me evidence that were abusing the reviewer right, not just being obnoxious in some other context, I'd be happy to consider removing it but we don't remove user rights just to punish users for behavior unrelated to those rights. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am aware that it is not a badge or a rank. I am also not suggesting that tools should be removed as some sort of "punishment". What is the standard for granting use of these types of tools? One general standard (highly simplified) is do you have a good basic grasp of the workings of Misplaced Pages and do you have reasonably good judgement? If the answer to that is 'no' then it is likely that an editor will run into trouble when it comes to using tools such as Review or Rollback, or Admin for that matter. This is certainly the rationale I've seen when I've read admins' reasons for denying requests for the Reviewer tool. In this case, the editor in question wasn't just having a bad day. There is a pattern of behaviour which should be of concern. However, it seems you do not share this opinion so I am happy to consider this matter closed. Taroaldo ✉ 21:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
| unhelpful and unwelcome speculation from a third party |
|---|
|
RFR/R reversion
Hello, I was just curious why my non-administrator observation comment was reverted. Thanks, smileguy91 16:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Short answer, because I am using an iPad and have big fingers, I had already re-instated it by the time you posted this though . Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the fast response. Cheers, smileguy91 16:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Moose/Meese
A response to your concern is here. Thanks. Nick Graves (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh well, it was worth a shot... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Reply
Hi I posted this on my talk page, not sure if you get notified.
I apologise, my intention was never to suggest a legal threat and I thought removing the comment and writing to you personally would be the best move in case others viewed it in the same way but it was reposted! (another rule I didn't know!!) I have no intention of editing or creating other posts. I simply made a huge error of judgment in trying to help a friend by setting up a company page with no regard to the rules and as it has been deleted citing "unambiguous advertising or promotion"-- I really messed up and desperately wanted to remove all traces of the article. I did not react well to being told there is no possible way of removing the article I created and I apologise if you saw any legal threat in what I said. I really was grasping at straws trying to get myself out of it! Sorry again - JulieSmith123 (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulieSmith123 (talk • contribs)
- No problem,, like I was saying on your talk page the rules aren't always obvious around here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Pending changes
How would a regular user nominate pages for Pending Changes? I have a couple articles in mind. — Confession0791 21:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- By posting at WP:RFPP. The easisest way is to go to the page you want protected and use Twinkle to do it, it's under "PP" in the dropdown menu. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
My edit at Arbcom
That statement of Pompous ass should not be there. Whether it was left by the individual or someone else it is utterly inappropriate. Kumioko (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- That is your opinion, and you opinion does not give you the right to refactor other people's posts. If it is so wildly inappropriate the ArbCom clerks would have removed it before now. It can be inferred that both they and the arbitrators were aware of it and chose to let it stand. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Its not my opinion its policy and it should have been removed that's why I made the statement I did. If that would have been left by a non admin they would have been blocked and or scolded for leaving it. I am growing tired of admins being allowed to violate policy and then having others justify it on the grounds that they are admins. Referring to a user as a pompous ass is inappropriate and if its coming from the user its at least being WP:Pointy. You can be mad at me if you want, you can even block me if you feel like abusing the admin tools for a non admin enforcing civility policy, but that pompous ass comment should not be there. Kumioko (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Speaking as the admin who initiated the discussion on why PumpkinSky shouldn't be blocked for calling someone else a "pompous ass", I disagree that this is being handled differently for an admin than a non-admin. If the Arb clerk wants to modify the header, it is upon them, but in this instance it seems appropriate since Drmies is being used as an example of an admin that has called someone a pompous ass before. It isn't what we say or the bits assigned to who says it, it is the context in which it is said that matters most. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- But that doesn't even apply. That header refers to Drmies as a pompous ass, not that he said someone else was a pompous ass. I didn't remove the term from DRmies writeup because that is wholly appropriate and within his right to do. Putting it in the header of the string is not. Kumioko (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- And it was Drmies that added that header , not someone else. Removing it smacks of censoring Drmies. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Kumioko totally-not-a-clean-start, I've reverted you again. So, balls on your court. I can see you love stirring up useless drama, so go ahead and revert me again so someone can block you and you can cry and wail about abusive admins until your talk page gets revoked too. This is taking way to long, get on with it already. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- My point was that discussing it was better than anyone reverting. While WP:BRD is mainly about articles, it is still pretty good at preventing drama in meta space as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox, Well since you brought it up I tried creating a new username and was accused of socking, I tried editing as an IP, which I would have been happily still doing still but guess what, I was accused of socking. So because some of your peers had a stick in their ass, I had no choice but to use a variation of my old username and since the clean start policy is complete garbage anyway, why not pole some fun at it. Back to the matter at hand, I am helpless, its a complete violation of policy but since you are an admin and I am not, there isn't much I can do but let you continue to perpetuate a violation of policy. Its insulting to the process but that's the way it is. I am sure it doesn't matter to you but I am extremely disappointed at your attitude towards this. I am also appalled at your accusation that I like stirring up trouble. What I like doing is helping this project, but there are a lot of admins with big ego's that would rather perpetuate the us and them mentality and keep us lowly editors in our place than to allow a longterm contributor with the intentions of the project to be able to help. And I will continue to "cry and wail" until the policy is evenly distributed to editors and admins. Which it is not currently. Until admins are no longer above reproach and held accountable when they screw up, then I will be there like Jiminy Cricket the conscience.
- @@Dennis, I know that's who did it. He knows better and its not censorship. Would you both like me to provide some links to examples of where editors where blocked for doing the same kind of thing? Nevermind, I would just be accused of being pointy and nothing would come of it anyway. Because I am just an editor, so what the hell do I know of policy and how dare I debate policy with too.. admins.Kumioko (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Do you feel I am treating admin differently than non-admin? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- No. That was not directed at you Dennis. It was mostly a statement of how the system itself works. It always favors the admins. Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Do you feel I am treating admin differently than non-admin? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- My point was that discussing it was better than anyone reverting. While WP:BRD is mainly about articles, it is still pretty good at preventing drama in meta space as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Kumioko totally-not-a-clean-start, I've reverted you again. So, balls on your court. I can see you love stirring up useless drama, so go ahead and revert me again so someone can block you and you can cry and wail about abusive admins until your talk page gets revoked too. This is taking way to long, get on with it already. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- And it was Drmies that added that header , not someone else. Removing it smacks of censoring Drmies. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- But that doesn't even apply. That header refers to Drmies as a pompous ass, not that he said someone else was a pompous ass. I didn't remove the term from DRmies writeup because that is wholly appropriate and within his right to do. Putting it in the header of the string is not. Kumioko (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Speaking as the admin who initiated the discussion on why PumpkinSky shouldn't be blocked for calling someone else a "pompous ass", I disagree that this is being handled differently for an admin than a non-admin. If the Arb clerk wants to modify the header, it is upon them, but in this instance it seems appropriate since Drmies is being used as an example of an admin that has called someone a pompous ass before. It isn't what we say or the bits assigned to who says it, it is the context in which it is said that matters most. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Its not my opinion its policy and it should have been removed that's why I made the statement I did. If that would have been left by a non admin they would have been blocked and or scolded for leaving it. I am growing tired of admins being allowed to violate policy and then having others justify it on the grounds that they are admins. Referring to a user as a pompous ass is inappropriate and if its coming from the user its at least being WP:Pointy. You can be mad at me if you want, you can even block me if you feel like abusing the admin tools for a non admin enforcing civility policy, but that pompous ass comment should not be there. Kumioko (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I know Dennis, it's no secret you're way nicer than I am. Probably smarter too. This is just so petty and silly, and of course before simply removing those words no attempt was made to simply ask Drmies if he would consider doing so himself, instead simply charging forth in the name of the "civility policy". e thinks this has far more to do with Kumioko's well known, oft displayed dislike of all admins and his apparent belief that admins only act out malice or corruption. Right, because it is soooo rewarding, what with all the bribes, fast cars, free liquor in the admin lounge, access to Jimbo's private stash of pre-embargo Cuban cigars and high-end Chinese watches, and so on. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Slightly less sarcastic, perhaps, but I don't know about the rest. My point to Kumioko being that when admin comes in, such as myself, and provides a rationale for why it should be left intact, then I am dismissed because I am an admin, then you are guilty of exactly the same thing you are accusing others of: treating admin and non-admin differently. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox, Its not like that at all. I do have a well known contempt for the us and them mentality but its not due to my hate for admins. Its my hate for how admins are treated differently. Also, there was no need to talk to Drmies about it because its an obvious policy violation. I would have removed it on day one but thought someone else would so I left it. When they didn't, I did. If that hurts your feelings, well, frankly, then that's just tough. Plenty of others, including you had the opportunity to remove that pointy and inappropriate "pompous ass" verbiage and should have. To be honest I think the thing that bothers you is that I did it, not that it was removed. As I said above, if that had been left by an editor and not by an admin it would have been removed immediately as has been done many times in the past. Since Drmies was an admin, it was left. Not surprising, but further evidence that what I have been saying about how admins are treated differently has some truth to it.
- @Dennis, you have a good point and you are right I am doing that to a certain degree, but its no more dismissive than the admins are treating me, so I do not feel particularly bad about it. No offense to you intended but I have been around just as long and know policy just as well as any admin but am dismissed because of my public dislike for the current us and them mentality and the way that admins are favored. Not because what I am saying is wrong, just that I am an editor treading into Admin areas. That's where my problems lie. If editors in the past were allowed to do what Drmies did, then it would n't bother me. But since I know of several that were modifed as I did because it was inappropriate, the same should be done to the admins when they do it. Not look the other way because they are admins. With all that said, I am going to log off and play Xbox with my son because I am not dumb enough to think that admins, including you, are going to change the system that gives them such a substantial leg up on the rest of us. I know its not going to happen. Its human nature, once a person has the power, they will fight hard to keep it. Kumioko (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Then you are choosing to be the thing you hate, and holding me responsible for the "sins of the father" which sounds like hypocrisy. I am not responsible for actions before my time, only for what I do and what I allow to happen by my inaction. If you want to be taken seriously and point to a better way, you have to lead by example. If you bother to read my thoughts on the sometimes appropriate use of the term "pompous ass" in the case that led us here, then you would find utterly complete and total parity. If that isn't good enough, then you need to reexamine your objectives, or at least your objectivity. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
RfC
Thanks for closing the RfC/U on Xenophrenic. I saw your comments and must agree with you. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Advise
Hello, because you deleted my failure for RFC/U because a user did not want to certify, may I ask you for advice on what to do next? I have had several users agree and I just want to show the user that what they have done is against policy it seems, they just don't understand it. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Given that nobody else was willing to endorse your concerns I would suggest that the wisest course of action at this point would be to let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Users agreed but don't want to get involved too much work, thank you MarioNovi (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
|
Thanks for shutting down that unproductive thread on Talk:Main Page. A good response. LFaraone 20:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC) |
- It amazes me how many utterly ridiculous complaints show up there. Thanks for the cookie. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Real Life Barnstar |
| Yo yo Chadwick0000 (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC) |
- Uh, what? Kind of hard to understand why this is here when it is your first ever edit and I don't remember having any real-life interactions with my fellow Wikipedians recently... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Swimming at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 4 x 100 metre freestyle relay
Dear Beeblebrox - I have added some text indicating some notability for this event and added a couple of supporing refs. I hope this addresses some of your worries and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC))
Hey Beeblebrox
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Something weird?
This IP appears to have never vandalized, yet is claiming to be a block evader, specifically addressing you. Thought you'd like to know. Brambleclawx 01:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- When one has dealt with trolls and WP:LTA headcases enough this sort of thing stops being surprising, although it is still puzzling. I will never understand people who set out to get blocked, as this IP clearly is. It sometimes seems they far overestimate their own importance, assuming I know who it is that is "taunting" me in this manner when it could be any one of dozens of nutjobs I've dealt with over the years. As they are doing nothing but playing a pointless game on their own talk page I'm frankly inclined to just let them do it rather than giving them the attention they are so obviously desperate for. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Indifference" is like kryptonite for trolls. Use liberally. ;-) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thanks ...
... for taking care of that HotCat thing. Someone pointed me to it, and I just wasn't in the mood for being an admin. at the moment. — Ched : ? 22:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. It has actually led fairly rapidly to this RFC on the underlying issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
ygm
— Ched : ? 04:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The ITN RfC
Hello,
I just wanted to inform you that the first comment after the RfC tag (Which the bot identifies as everything before the first signature following the RfC tag) is used as a summary for a central listings of RfCs. So unless you want to add your support as part of that summary which will be displayed, I think you could add another timestamp between your vote and the RfC rationale
Regards, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oooh, right, I'll fix that now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- We were too late anyways. I fixed the rationale manually. Since the arguments were pretty vital to the introduction to this discussion IMO, I left them there. :) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
"zap"
I was perplexed by your revdel of a note I left on a user talk page about a discussion that referenced them. I've discussed this further at the VPP page where I first saw the article. Wnt (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Then I assume you have seen my remarks there and now understand what the problem is. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I see an old comment you made on a different discussion at the Signpost, but that doesn't really address the issue. I mean, I've cited an article in New York magazine which specifically identifies that username in its title as Lanza. You may be right that there is no actual evidence it is true - nowadays it isn't unheard of for many news outlets to run with a bogus story - but it's waaay past the point of trying to prevent "outing" with secrecy. And the point was, if we have two different discussions talking about this user, citing press releases that name him by username, he ought to have the right to know about it with a talk page note, so that if he is about to log in in three years from now and upload photos of his trip to the gun show he realizes there are a bunch of people out there who think his account belongs to a killer. Wnt (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- At the time I zapped your remark there had not yet been any direct connection made by a reliable source that I was aware of. Technically, it is still outing if you ever attempt to publicly identify a users real identity without their permission, but obviously in a case like this that's an impossible rule to enforce. I've been keeping an eye on this situation in between dealing with stuff at work and it seems to have developed a little further every time I check back. At this point those edits might as well be put back as these (irresponsible, in my opinion) journalists have gone ahead and made the connection public now. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I see an old comment you made on a different discussion at the Signpost, but that doesn't really address the issue. I mean, I've cited an article in New York magazine which specifically identifies that username in its title as Lanza. You may be right that there is no actual evidence it is true - nowadays it isn't unheard of for many news outlets to run with a bogus story - but it's waaay past the point of trying to prevent "outing" with secrecy. And the point was, if we have two different discussions talking about this user, citing press releases that name him by username, he ought to have the right to know about it with a talk page note, so that if he is about to log in in three years from now and upload photos of his trip to the gun show he realizes there are a bunch of people out there who think his account belongs to a killer. Wnt (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
You done it now, eh?
I almost hope it goes to a full case so this can be thrashed out once and for all, this is going to be popcorn-worthy. I'm of two minds over much of this, as I still contribute here, but there are lots of discussions over there that really dig into some serious problems that get swept under the rug here. But on the other other hand, the d-baggery is off the charts at times, Peter Damian bragging about his explosive tell-all book is like listening to talk of Don Quixote's filming wrapping up someday. Ah well, thanks for getting the ball rolling. Tarc (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I know, it's going to be ugly but as an oversighter I feel like we are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I personally feel that if they focussed on constructive criticism, as they sometimes have, instead of being assholes and outing people they could serve a valuable function. But with so many users who would rather destroy Misplaced Pages than help it and pretty much no accountability by anyone for anything that happens there I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Feedback request
Hi Beeb. As a former contributor to this, you may wish to take a look at this. If you do, please read it carefully in order not to miss the explicit objective. Comments on its talk page. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)