Jump to content

User talk:Mdaniels5757: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
well-advised?
Line 129: Line 129:
==Well-advised move?==
==Well-advised move?==
May I assume [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carl_XVI_Gustaf&diff=963068242&oldid=963043813 here] that you were not aware that Charles XV is called Charles IV in Norway, and that that one probably should not have been on that list? His grandfather [[Charles XIV John of Sweden]] has a similar feature & was not moved. Could you reverse Charles XV and give us a chance to discuss that aspect? --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 13:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
May I assume [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carl_XVI_Gustaf&diff=963068242&oldid=963043813 here] that you were not aware that Charles XV is called Charles IV in Norway, and that that one probably should not have been on that list? His grandfather [[Charles XIV John of Sweden]] has a similar feature & was not moved. Could you reverse Charles XV and give us a chance to discuss that aspect? --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 13:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
* {{re|SergeWoodzing}} Thanks for pointing that out. I reversed that move, and will start a new RM at [[Talk:Charles XV of Sweden]] shortly. --[[User:Mdaniels5757|Mdaniels5757]] ([[User talk:Mdaniels5757#top|talk]]) 15:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:11, 20 June 2020

DS awareness

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 3 as User talk:Mdaniels5757/Archive 2 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

markAdmins

Hello. I'm not sure if its just me, but this script won't work on long pages such as this. 1989 (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1989: Hi. Happy to see someone else using it! It works for me. It looks like you set it to timeout in your common.js, try removing it for now (I will implement caching so it is hopefully faster soon). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to see if it would help. That didn't work either. 1989 (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1989: Huh. I tested stuff out, and it seems to be something in your global.js. No clue what, though. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both User:Gary/comments_in_local_time and User:Kephir/gadgets/unclutter seem to be conflicting with the script. 1989 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1989: User:Mxn/CommentsInLocalTime seems to be compatible, at least. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, I'm currently having trouble with it. How about unclutter? 1989 (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1989: Looks like that does some signature minimisation that messes it up. It may work if you disable that feature by adding the following before importing the script: 
window.kephirUnclutter = {
	signaturesProcess           : false,
	signaturesMinimise          : false,
	signaturesColourise         : false,
};
One or more of these lines may be able to be removed, but I don't know which. I'll add this incompatibility to the documentation. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind your script works with them, it just doesn't when the page is too long. @Amorymeltzer: Would you be able to see what's wrong with the Signature minimisation? Not sure if the author is still active. 1989 (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found the culprit. When I use reply-link and Unclutter together, they don't work simultaneously anymore when long pages are present with the markAdmins script. In fact, I reported an issue to User:Enterprisey about reply-link not working when using Unclutter, and I can see that has not been resolved yet. 1989 (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1989: OK, good to hear you figured it out. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closure at Talk:Ethosuximide

Moved to User talk:Mdaniels5757/Ethosuximide closure
 – too long, had too many notifications --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

merger

Hi. Are you going to do it? —usernamekiran (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: Totally forgot about it. Do you want to, or should I? --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick drive-by

I want to thank you for your work as a closer. Your thoughtful explanations are much appreciated. Happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 10:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving at Talk:Boogaloo movement

Do you have any idea why ClueBot isn't archiving the page, despite several threads being older than 72h? I poked around earlier but couldn't figure it out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy

I saw the two lists with various thingies, but it wasn't all that clear to me: I should have done {{proxycheck|open}}? If you can add that to the top of that page, that would be helpful for amateurs like me... Drmies (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous

16 further accounts! – 2.O.Boxing 11:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bir Mangaoli

Thanks for closing the discussion at Talk:Bir Mangaoli#Requested move 22 May 2020. But the consensus was to move "without leaving a redirect". So, can you please delete the redirect? The redirect in question is a hoax to connect the name of a particular community with the village. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NitinMlk: The redirect is tagged for deletion, see Bir Mangoli Sainian. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) NitinMlk (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Open Proxies Project

So I actually didn't know that was a thing until today - neat project. If you don't mind me asking, what tools did you use to determine that the one IP was a zombie proxy? GeneralNotability (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: Yeah, it's useful (especially for some ACC -related issues). That IP was a pretty easy one to confirm as a proxy: I saw the port number in the block log (8080), opened up another browser, changed my proxy settings to connect to 124.105.197.141:8080, and found that it worked. I got the {{zombie proxy}} thing from the fact that MikroTik routers have a widespread security vulnerability that makes it easy for attackers to turn them into open proxies, and when I put http://124.105.197.141 into my browser it says that it is, in fact, a mikrotik router (although the version number makes it should imply that the specific vulnerability I was thinking of when writing it was fixed, there have been others since, and I think it is possible that the router could be lying). Connecting to a proxy is really the only way to confirm it definitely, but you can also get close to confirmation with things like WHOIS records. Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Group editnotice seems not to be working

Heyo, hope you're well - and thanks for handling a couple of my editnotices recently! Appreciate it

The one you just sorted for me, Template:Editnotices/Group/User:Yapperbot/kill, seems not to be working, weirdly - I thought I'd drop you a message to see if it was something obvious before taking it to VPT if it's not. If you take a look at the edit page for a subpage, for instance, you can see pretty clearly that there's no editnotice of the sort there.

Any ideas what's happening? It's not just that page, it's any subpage - I've tried creating the root page and purging the cache, to no avail.

All the best, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you so much for all your work handling template requests and dealing with my editnotice problems - please accept this barnstar as a token of my appreciation! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8'46"

Hi there. Can you elaborate more on your close rationale for Talk:Eight_minutes_46_seconds#Requested_move_10_June_2020? Paintspot initially raised concerns at a subsequent RM for that page (since withdrawn), but I also have similar questions. To me, it seemed that there was no guideline-based support at the subthread Talk:Eight_minutes_46_seconds#Sanity_break to spell out "Eight"; one person initally said it was based on the AP-based MOS, but they withdrew their support. Others !votes for "eight" were not based on a guideline, while I explained that our MOS had no preference for this case, which one other agreed and nobody rebutted. Thanks in advance. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Bagumba. Thanks for reaching out. In summary, I found (and retrospectively numbered) (1.) a strong consensus to move away from 8'46" to (in regex form) /(8|Eight) minutes( and)? 46 seconds/, and (2.) a somewhat weak consensus that the value represented by the word "eight" should be spelled out in the title. Since I don't think the former is in dispute (although I'd be happy to provide a more detailed explanation of that if you wish), a more detailed explanation of only the latter follows.
Background: the guidelines are a mess on this. Going off of any version of MOS:NUM between May 29 and June 15, it's not clear that the relevant portion of MOSNUM applies to titles at all. (The "generally, in article text" part of MOS:SPELL09 applies only to, well, article text. However, the "notes and exceptions" section that could otherwise apply doesn't say so. But it makes no sense to have the scope of the exceptions exceed the scope of the rule! Further complicating matters, one of the exceptions is that "proper names, technical terms, and the like are never altered", and the examples are links to and/or titles of Wikipedia articles, so maybe it does apply?) However, even assuming the MOS applies, the MOS doesn't tell us much of use when the integer we need to decide how to represent is expressible by the word "eight", only that "figures or words may be used with unit names ([n] minutes or [number] minutes), within the guidelines above" (but "the guidelines above" say "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words"). Given all of this, I weighted appeals to MOS for this portion of the discussion less than I normally would. For obvious reasons, for question 2, I weighted discussion that took place after "Eight minutes forty-six seconds" was proposed more than discussion that took place before the proposal (although I did take the reasoning of each participant into account in evaluating the question, even if they did not participate in the later discussion).
Turning to the the discussion of question 2 itself: I found that the consensus was clearly for one of what User:EEng numbered B2 and B3 (with, perhaps, an "and" thrown in, but there was minimal discussion on that). Both were well-argued, to the point that my weightings based on the strength of both arguments were equal. However, B2 received the support of 4 in the subthread, and B3 received the support of only two (counting yours as B3). That would be a fairly strong consensus, but given the goings-on outside of the subthread, I think it was weaker (but still there). An aside: WP:NCDURATION wasn't mentioned as far as I noticed, probably because its examples don't really seem to consider shorter periods of time. We should probably work on that if there is a consensus either way.
All of that being said, I think that there is actually a chance that a RM squarely focused on the following two questions would reach a different result, at least on one of them: (a) Should the integer represented by the word "eight" be expressed as "8" or "eight"? and (b) Should the word "and" go between "minutes" and "46"? I wouldn't be too opposed to one being started on that; although I think the differences are minor enough that it might not be worth the effort, others may not agree.
I hope the above is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions, or if you have any interest in working on making this labyrinth of MOS/Naming Conventions a bit less labyrinthian. Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for closing this. FWIW, my !vote was for "8 minutes and 46 seconds", which wasn't any of the "A" or "B" options. I read the "sanity break" thread and nothing therein persuaded me to change my !vote (which was based on common name, with examples provided). I count more than half a dozen editors voting the same way I did. I didn't realize that my vote would be weighed less because it came before the sanity break section. Frankly I didn't think I had to comment again because "8 minutes and 46 seconds" had such a large lead in terms of votes over any other option presented. Don't get me wrong, I think your rationale above is well reasoned and extremely thorough. You've clearly put a lot of thought into the close, for which I'm grateful. And I'm a big believer in "not a vote". Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and I'm sorry for that. I think I did fully consider your non-vote, and I should probably further elaborate on how exactly I did that weighting. There were effectively three questions to answer in the RM yes, I did list only two above.... Abandoning my labelling from above, they were: (a) Should the title have "minutes" and "seconds"? (per MOS:UNITNAMES) (b) Should the first integer be spelled out? and (c) Should the word "and" be between "minutes" and "46"?. The non-votes in before the section break fully considered issue (a), and I fully took those comments into account on that issue. However, the non-votes before the section break (with a couple of exceptions) did not discuss issues (b) and (c), and therefore, I did not take those particular non-votes into account on determining those issues. I did, however, fully take into account your WP:COMMONNAME argument, which, although having merit, was not discussed by others (although it was seconded). Your argument is why I described the consensus on issues (b) and (c) as weak, and why it could change.
Turning to the my closure's result itself: Although I think there was a consensus on (b) and (c) in the direction that I closed it, I think a "no consensus" close would have also been reasonable for those issues (I still don't think there was a positive consensus for your version, given the section break discussion). However, that would raise the question: "What should the article be renamed to, given the consensus on (a) being that there are serious other issues with the title?". Although I'm not convinced I should undo my closure (because there would be a second RM either way), in retrospect, I probably should not have closed the discussion at all. Instead I should have acted as a facilitator, asking others who had not yet discussed (b) and (c) to do so, and trying to further develop discussion on the WP:COMMONNAME argument. That would have probably led to a more robust consensus, one way or another. Thoughts, @Levivich? (also, please let me know if you want me to stop pinging you...) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think your analysis is solid. I agree it comes down to (b) and (c), or "eight/8" and "and". From a COMMONNAME perspective, the "and" bit could go either way: some sources include "and", others omit it. I view that as a "tie", which can be broken by MOS in preference for omitting the "and", basically per EEng's arguments. The "Eight/8" part is the tougher one for me. It seems to me that "8" is far preferred by sources, especially in titles of works (i.e. headlines). MOS clearly says "eight". Part of me thinks, "Well AT is a policy and MOS is a guideline", but I generally dislike "its only a guideline" arguments. There's something to be said for "we should write it the right way even if no one else does". But that seems to go against COMMONNAME. Do you see it that way on the "eight/8" issue? As COMMONNAME-vs-MOS? In the end, if this were to be pursued further, it seems like a relist (with a helpful relisting statement to guide further discussion, as you suggest) is more efficient than a second RM or an MR. On the other hand, I think this is a purely stylistic and not-at-all-substantive titling dispute (unlike, say, "death of..." v. "murder of..."), so I'm personally rather ambivalent about whether further discussion would be productive, or whether we should just "make a call" (as you have done) and move on. (And no I appreciate the pings, thank you, and WarGames is a classic!) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Agreed on both counts. If people want that relist, I'll do it, but I agree that it might not be worth it. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A relist could be an option, but with an WP:IAR of not reverting back to 8'46", for which it's unanimous that it's wrong.—Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the article ought to be merged anyhow, and may very well be. BTW turns out it's not 8 minutes and 46 seconds, it's 7 minutes and 46 seconds, and I think that will dampen the lasting significance of this slogan. Or maybe everyone will just update their signs. We'll see. [1] Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's independent of the close, at any rate.—Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Throwing a wrench into the AT vs MOS debate, it's never been clear if AT applies to styling of titles. These options are all the same time duration, and moreorless read the same as a title. They are just styled differently. For the names of works e.g. books, films, songs, etc." we typically defer to the styling of the original. But this about Floyd is more of a descriptive idea as opposed to a title of a work. Anyways, this was all not part of the RM discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bagumba! The reason I opened up that "part 2" Requested move is because a majority of people seemed to prefer the consistent numerals ("8 minutes 46 seconds") over the combined half-and-half version (among the other reasons listed at the withdrawn move request). Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdaniels5757: I appreciate the response. Yes, my main concern is your point 2 re: "eight" vs. "8". A few responses to some of your comments: ... it's not clear that the relevant portion of MOSNUM applies to titles at all: Perhaps, but I don't think that was a point brought up by the participants. Given all of this, I weighted appeals to MOS for this portion of the discussion less than I normally would.: But I don't believe any participants said "don't follow the MOS because it doesn't make sense." Thus, I don't think it should be a factor in the close. I weighted discussion that took place after "Eight minutes forty-six seconds" was proposed more than discussion that took place before the proposal: I don't see why they would be given additional weight. There wasn't any inherent bad assumption made earlier nor any quideline oversights. This also presupposes that there is WP:SILENT support of later comments, but participants typically dont check back unless they are pinged. However, B2 received the support of 4 in the subthread ...: I see only 2: intially it was EEng, VikingB, and Psiĥedelisto—I consider EEng to have withdrawn that support. Those 2 didn't elaborate on why they liked one over the other. Blaylockjam10 and I provided a rationale for our choice of "8", and mentioned that its allowable per the MOS. Of course, discussions aren't a pure !vote count either. I think that there is actually a chance that a RM squarely focused on the following two questions would reach a different result ... I don't see the arguments supporting "eight" being stronger, and are in the minority of the entire discussion. I think we do go with the majority in that case, but it is fair for mention in the close about no prejudice on a further narrow discussion on "eight" vs "8". Regardless of how you view the weighting now, you do need to expand the close's rationale and mention any acceptable RM options that could be opened and not be considered disruptive. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand I'm pinged in here somewhere but when I went looking I got disoriented and became dizzy. All I can say is if you guys try to add in the comma or the and I'll sic the MOS mob on you. EEng 21:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, well, dear, worry not, my friend, for I can say, without a doubt, "Bagumba and Mdaniels and Paintspot and I would never do such a thing." Levivich [dubious – discuss] 21:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well-advised move?

May I assume here that you were not aware that Charles XV is called Charles IV in Norway, and that that one probably should not have been on that list? His grandfather Charles XIV John of Sweden has a similar feature & was not moved. Could you reverse Charles XV and give us a chance to discuss that aspect? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mdaniels5757&oldid=963570925"