Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Locke Cole (talk | contribs) at 05:19, 17 November 2008 (→Warning regarding unlinking of dates: a warning regarding prior arbitration). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Werdnabot

This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Real-life workload: 10

• 1 = no work pressure
• 5 = middling
• > 5 = please don't expect much
• 10 = frenzied

Please note that I don't normally (1) copy-edit articles, or (2) review articles that are not candidates for promotion to featured status.

Day of the year

Please stop de-linking dates on the year pages: they're date pages, so of course the dates are linked. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the ones I self-reverted a few minutes ago? I did them by mistake, having strayed onto them in an adjacent nav-box. Tony (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I would be referring to this, this, this, this, this and this, which you most assuredly did not revert. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Done; thanks for pointing this out. Tony (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course they're done: I did them myself. Are you sure you're paying attention when you edit? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In future, don't waste my time. Tony (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You've already wasted mine, cleaning up after your unacknowledged carelessness: I'm simply hoping to prevent future incidents. So, again, please play closer attention when charging ahead on your peculiar obsession. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad your time was wasted. Next time, express yourself more clearly to save me needless trouble rather than accusing me, and I'll thank you for pointing out my mistake. As it is, I withdraw my thanks expressed earlier. Tony (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I stated myself very clearly. That you didn't understand--twice--reflects on your lack of awareness of your own editing, not any lack of clarity in my simple statements. As for your added 'Aggression usually ends up rebounding, as it has for you in this case'--does that mean you intend on making more and bigger mistakes to take out your frustration? I'd suggest that a little self-reflection would be helpful here. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• You can state yourself "very clearly" until you're blue in the face, chum, but that just makes you look like a prize fool. Rather than telling you to fuck off (which I'd never do in actuality—aggression never pays), I advise that you reflect yourself on the time you are continuing to waste. Your welcome on my talk page has been overstayed. Tony (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Script bug

Hey Tony, there is/was a bug in Lightmouse's script and some/all of the 'years in music' articles are now a bit messed up. See this edit for example. See all the "$2"s. I think the articles should be reverted for now. I got to go to work right now, could you take care of it. Thanks. - kollision (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a bug in the script, but a bad fault in the syntax in the first place. Instead of reverting, why not fix up what was wrong in the first place? This will have to be done manually. For example:

]–] was displaying as 7–March 16

which was hopelessly wrong. My advice is not to revert at all until Lightmouse advises whether it's possible to tweak the script to "translate" this error into a proper unlinked equivalent. If so, he'll advise whether it's better to revert and then run the script again or whether the script can be re-applied without reverting to correct the error. If not, the manual option needs to be pursued, and since the issue arose from bad syntax in the first place, I think it's the job of the editors to fix it. I'm glad this has been uncovered. Thanks for your vigilance. Tony (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony, the 'messed up' assertion is true. If you search the example for '$2', you will see what User:Kollision means. It was a bug and has now been fixed, see User_talk:Lightmouse#Script_bug. I believe that is all he/she was referring to. Lightmouse (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Lightmouse: before the script,

]–] was displaying as 7–March 16

After the script,

]–] was displaying as 7$2–March 16

Are we looking at the same diff? It seems that one messed-up version was merely changed into another messed-up version. Tony (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just run the script again on the example provided by Kollision. Still the dollar signs:

Tony (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Cache

Some thoughts:

• If you add the script page to your watchlist or check my contributions you will see if the script has been changed. You can then clear your cache.
• Alternatively, you could simply clear your cache at intervals. For example, before you start a long session using it.
• You can set your browser to clear temporary files when it closes. I am not too knowledgeable on such things but that will have the same effect as clearing your cache at the time the browser is next opened.
• Some people like to reboot their computer from time to time e.g. once per day. That doesn't necessarily clear the cache but it can be a good idea for other reasons.

In most cases, the cache issue isn't something to worry about but it can be a nuisance sometimes. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Peer review/WrestleMania XXIV/archive1

Hey, do you have time to look over this article and give it a review? iMatthew 22:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

'Fraid not: 10 at top of this page? Just looking in briefly each night. Tony (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

*To the musical strains of a Heavenly oratorio…*

• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/March_1 Greg L (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well… that was interesting… Greg L (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• I thought you’d be fascinated by this complaint Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#More questionable behavior from WT:MOSNUM. Greg L (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Beta testing needed

I think I have fixed the comma issue (and made the code much more efficient) but I need feedback from beta testers. All you have to do is go to your monobook replace the current script with:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/test_script.js');

The two scripts won't work together. Lightmouse (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Beta testing complete. Use the normal script. Lightmouse (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Decade article

In response to your post at the years project, would you like to help out with our 1340s draft? Wrad (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would indeed, and have bookmarked it. As you may have seen, my RL work-stress is on 9.5 out of 10. By Friday, it should be downs to something more manageable and I'll take a proper look. Tell me, to what extent does it borrow from 1345? Tony (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

So far, bits from 1345 are in the Americas and Africa sections, the Reconquista sections, and the Black Plague section. Other sections have dwarfed whatever they borrowed. Wrad (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hello, Tony1. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:AN#Review. Thank you.MBisanz 20:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

SS Carl D. Bradley and DYK

Noticed your recent contribution. Because of the impending 50th anniversary, I thought this might be a good DYK. I was told (on my talk page) that we are about 5000 bytes away from the cut off -- there already have been some substantial updates. So I'm recruiting help. If you can find the time, it would be appreciated. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Stan

I'd love to help, but I have to be parsimonious with my Wiki time budget at the moment. End of next week I might be able to do a fly-by on it and suggest things. Tony (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll review it and lighten up Tony's load. Give me 2-3 days. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WT:FAC

Have you abandoned FAC and FAR? There's a discussion here, following on the withdrawal of Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Mark Speight/archive2 that you might want to participate in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning regarding unlinking of dates

As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a massive scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, which I quote:

Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

— Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli

Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)