User talk:Anomie/Archives/2024

Help again.

@Anomie I'm having trouble, again. Could your bot or somebody help with this reference issue? Thank you! ⚒️★MinecraftPlayer★³²¹⚒️ Let's Chat! 21:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

useridentifier.js with Vector 2022

In the current version of User:Anomie/useridentifier.js, the popup appears in the upper right and is cut off when using Vector 2022. To fix it, change line 140 from

            h.parentNode.insertBefore(d,h.nextSibling);

to

            var bc=document.getElementById('bodyContent');
            bc.parentNode.insertBefore(d,bc);

This change does not impact the display in legacy vector or monobook (where bodyContent was the nextSibling of firstHeading). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 10:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Sigh. I went with a slightly different fix that seemed to position the popup a little better. Anomie⚔ 12:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good. Thanks! --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Request

Can you make User:Anomie/hide-images like script which can hide all type of images? ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 04:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Which images in the page content does the existing script not hide? Anomie⚔ 14:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I want that all types of images will hide until I click it. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

If you don't give me examples of images it's not hiding, I can't fix it. If you're referring to images outside of the page content area or images from MediaWiki's user interface, those are not going to be included. Anomie⚔ 16:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I want to hide images with someone's face. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 05:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @LordVoldemort728: Whilst you have done this, it's only part of the actions described at User:Anomie/hide-images. You still need to update your CSS page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Anomie :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Bot approval help needed

Why is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BsoykaBot 3 just being ignored for weeks now? Can you advise or expedite? Dicklyon (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There aren't a whole lot of BAGgers active at the moment. I don't know why the ones active haven't done anything with it yet. Anomie⚔ 18:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you take a look, or advise who I should bug next? Dicklyon (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into that one at the moment. Anomie⚔ 21:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Bot late to create FFD logs?

We've gotten one user Kys5g creating FFD logs before your AnomieBOT recently because your bot seems apparently late to create FFD logs automatically. What can you do about the bot and that user? George Ho (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

AnomieBOT does not appear to have been late, when I check the logs it's first checking the new day's page at 23:00 UTC the day before as usual, just in time for the new day to start (see for example the creation of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 22). Kys5g for some reason created Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 23 at 09:07 UTC the day before, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 24 at 10:55 UTC the day before, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 25 at 12:15 UTC the day before, and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 26 at 03:17 UTC the day before. And he did Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 27 and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 28 at the same time, several days early.

As for what can I do about the user, I can ping him and ask why he's creating them so much ahead of time. I see you already tried at User talk:Kys5g#Creating of FFD logs but got a somewhat confused response. I also see on his user page that he has a "This user comes from Vietnam" user box, so perhaps part of it is that he's thinking in UTC+07:00 time? Although he's still been doing it early even for that timezone. Anomie⚔ 23:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC format

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#RFC: Sever WP:MASSCREATE from WP:BOTPOL: note as per Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Statement should be neutral and brief, RfCs should start with a short, neutral statement ending with a timestamp, so Legobot can copy it to the various lists of RfCs. isaacl (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to keep that in mind for the future, but I'd rather not go back and reformat it now. Is there another option to make Legobot happy? Anomie⚔ 02:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I inserted a datestamp after the question, hopefully that's good enough. Anomie⚔ 02:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Legobot tries to copy everything up to the first timestamp. I don't remember the exact maximum number of characters it will copy, but if it's longer than that, another editor such as Redrose64 might come along and decide on a short summary for you. So my suggestion is to start with a brief sentence or two with a following timestamp, so you can control what editors who use the lists and the notification service will see. isaacl (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

And how would Redrose64 do that? In some undocumented but useful manner, or by reformatting the RFC itself in a manner that I'd think breaks the flow of it? Anomie⚔ 03:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Without going back to look through their contributions, I believe by doing something like copying your question to the top of the RfC and adding a timestamp at the end. But the point is doing it yourself will forestall getting into a dispute with what someone else does (since even the RfC introductory text is subject to consensus agreement, with English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions). isaacl (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The statement - as amended here - is briefer, but it's still not neutral: after removal of the <strong>...</strong> tags, the third paragraph (beginning "Personally I'm ...") is the most obvious. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I guessed right, the answer was "break the actual RFC to make the bot-list look slightly nicer". Sigh. Anomie⚔ 23:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"About your motivations"

([1]) motivations? What do I as an editor gain by having a file on Commons? I'm confused, kindly clarify. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

As a Commons admin who has tried multiple times to limit uses of Template:Keep local, it seems to me that you may be motivated by your perception of what's good for Commons rather than by what's good for the English Wikipedia. That you reacted so strongly when I pointed that out strengthens my impression. Beyond that, I'm not interested in trying to change your mind. Anomie⚔ 11:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey man, I apologise for reacting harshly to your comment. It felt like a personal attack to me, but it might have been a genuine concern. This keep local discussion is going nowhere so I've closed it, and I'll stay away from that template for a bit if it's causing problems. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 14:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible cleanup in your monobook.js

Hi, T373286#10106458 onward, then some searches on enwiki, brought me here.

Following up to 514424584 and 630235814, actually the issue had been fixed shortly after: 630361822 (also refs discussion). So you might want to remove the code from 630235814.

Od1n (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you're right. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 03:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Bot request

Hi Anomie - I saw your bot just corrected a reference error in a footnote at Krüper's nuthatch. There remains a problem with this footnote though; it is still giving "Error on call to Template:cnote: Parameter #1 (name of content note) and parameter #2 (text of content note) must both be entered". I couldn't work out what is wrong there (in over a dozen change attempts in preview!), could you see if you could sort it out, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I think I found it, it was a problem with an "=" sign - MPF (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Pending changes protection history

Regarding your comment: editors are distrustful of proposals to try pending changes protection in new ways because the initial trial deployment didn't end on schedule. (The link in question was to the RfC that reached consensus to stop deployment (with as I recall, some exceptions like pending changes protection set by WMF staff as an office action).) I wrote up a longer explanation before realizing that you were editing during that time period, so you may recall the feelings of various editors from that time. isaacl (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

And then a year later in another RFC people decided to start using it again. 🤷 In the later RFC I linked, people were opposing based on vague statements that it has "problems", nothing about it not being turned off right away at the end of the original trial. Anomie⚔ 02:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the linked RfC provided context of the historical distrust.

Regarding problems, pending changes has bugs, and there is no software development team currently up-to-speed on its implementation and thus readily able to fix them. As a result, some editors don't want to make pending changes more prominent in our processes, and aren't very hopeful about any enhancements. This is, however, a separate issue from the historical distrust. isaacl (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)