This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ludwigs2 (talk | contribs) at 19:07, 28 April 2010 (→Block Notice: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:07, 28 April 2010 by Ludwigs2 (talk | contribs) (→Block Notice: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archives |
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
proposal - need collab
I've invited a number of people to join at this thread, so thank you for looking. I'd like to develop something similar to wp:AWB, except PHP based (frankly, I'm starting this because I'm annoyed that there's no version of AWB that works on Macs). My idea is to create a separate user (much like a bot-account): people can navigate to that user's page, where they will find an assortment of HTML forms where they can perform AWB-like functions straight through wikipedia's servers. My problem is the learning curve - the PHP coding is not beyond me technically, but the project is too large for me to handle on my own, given my current informational deficit. I've contacted you (as a group) because you have worked on or developed PHP bot code, and will probably be much more 'up' on this problem than I am. what I need to know is the following:
- Which of the various available bot frameworks is best suited to this task?
- How difficult do you think this project will actually be?
- What's the best approach (In your view) to achieving this?
- What considerations am I missing? I'm already concerned about keeping this from turning into a vandalism tool, for instance, and about server resources (it would probably be best to have a system of queueing requests, which would help with both problems).
I'd also like to know if any of you are interested in collaborating on this project - that would make things a hell of a lot easier for me, and make development much faster. Please let me know. --Ludwigs2 06:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Making the box around a self-contained suggested change
Sorry to bother, but I just added a new proposal for R&I here . When you did this as mediator, you had a cool way of putting the proposal in a special box. I looked at the archives for the mediation, but couldn't figure out how you did it. Any suggestions? David.Kane (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I used {{quote box}}. I modified it in talk - take a look at what I did. --Ludwigs2 21:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! David.Kane (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Reverting of race and intelligence to pre-mediation version
I’d predicted that this would happen, didn’t I?
The discussion about it is here. Not that I really expect this change to last, but I figured you might have something to say about the idea of discarding the three months of work you put into this article. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
help w template
Hi Ludwigs,
I'm failing miserably w a simple modification of a template. It's {{Abbr}}, where I want to add the option of formatting the text, for when using it as a pop-up gloss for poorly supported fonts. I'd like to add a third parameter switch, which will format the param. 1 text with {{unicode}} or {{IPA}}, and eventually other formats (Arabic, Indic, etc). (Actually, I'd like to have the 1st parameter be the switch if there are three, or revert to the existing code if there are two.) However, I can't figure out how to add the {{...| of the format code without it either messing up the parsing of the switch and if statement, or being displayed as simple text. Can you help? kwami (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- the code needs to look something like this:
<abbr title="{{#tag:nowiki|{{{2|}}}}}">{{#switch: {{{3|}}} | unicode = {{ unicode |{{{1|}}}}} | ipa = {{ IPA |{{{1|}}}}} | {{{1|}}} }}</abbr>
- the second bit (about switching parameters around) is
impossiblea royal pain if you're simply trying to expand this template - there's no way for the template to distinguish between the old use of parameter 1 and the new use. You could do it without too much trouble if you wanted to create a new template, and forward this template through with the parameters repositioned - is it worth the effort, though? --Ludwigs2 18:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of an #if{{{3}}} function. But I notice that if I add a third parameter to the existing template: it's simply ignored: {{Abbr|aoeu|snth|k}} = aoeu. Therefore I should be able to simply expand the existing template, as long as I don't mind having to put the switch is position 3.
The reason I wanted it in position 1 was because that would make it easier to update articles with 'replace all', but I can just use AWB.
Thanks for the help! kwami (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, one other problem: Unicode works great, but the {{IPA}} template already has a move-over popup saying it's IPA, and this negates the intended mouseover. Any idea how to prevent that?
Mathsci
I really think you ought to post diffs demonstrating what's problematic about Mathsci's behavior in the AN/I thread. Most people's default assumption there seems to be that his behavior is fine, so they'll need to see specific evidence of what's wrong with it before they'll believe otherwise. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- With all due respect - your comments on ANI are not helping the situation right now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- George, I'm not sure who you're talking to, but if it's me, I don't see how my comments are hurting any either. This makes at least 6 ANI threads that Mathsci has started or hijacked in efforts to get people in trouble around the R&I (starting with a half-assed effort to hijack a thread and get me banned) - enough is enough. the poor sot needs to learn that he needs to behave like an adult.
- Occam, please allow me to do things the way I think is best; your approach to the problem is not exactly a success story, yah? I'm interested in ending the problem, not exacerbating it. --Ludwigs2 04:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikiquette alerts
Hello, Ludwigs2. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Block Notice
I came here from that Wikiquete page and immediate found above more incivility and personal attacks against Mathsci "poor sot needs to learn that he needs to behave like an adult" etc. A quick look at recent diffs revealed some more incivility and personal attacks against him on other pages calling him arrogant, implying mental illness etc. This is completely unacceptable. You seem to be an experienced editor who should know better. You have been given a series of hints from other admins which haven't worked and provoked more incivility. I don't know the history but I am afraid it cannot justify the incivility. In looking at block length I have considered (1) the fact that any other warning seems likely to provoke more incivility (2) the fact you really ought to know better (3) the fact that it is with considerable reluctance that I block an experienced user for this kind of bad behaviour. I am therefore blocking you for 48 hours with a strict proviso that any admin should can unblock you with my blessing should you produce any kind of genuine apology for your recent conduct (which would imply you had recognised the problem and the block was no longer needed). --BozMo talk 18:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- This seems unbalanced. whatever I have said about Mathsci, he has said far more extreme and unpleasant things about me (not to mention others), and with much greater frequency. I'm more than happy to reign myself in, if that's what you'd like (ruth be told, I was just trying to get Mathsci to pay attention and stop being uncivil). I would expect you to issue the same request to Mathsci.
- If this is intentionally unbalanced (for whatever reason), please let me know, and I will voluntarily close this account and move on to other things. I like wikipedia, and I have a lot to contribute in my own way, but there is no point contributing to the project if some editors have administrative leave to be aggressively rude. I'm a good editor, and I don't really deserve to have people riding my ass every time I try to do certain things. I'll happily leave it in the hands of the drama-prone, if that's what you think is best. --Ludwigs2 19:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)