User talk:AzaToth/Archives/2013/June

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Pogled u nebo

The situation at All matches Bosnian national football team is getting ridiculous now. The above-mentioned user has reverted me again, and has again provided no reason for doing so. Can you please impose some discipline, because I very much doubt they'll listen to anything else? Out of interest, did you actually read the case I posted to WP:ANI or did you just see two people apparently "edit-warring" and template us both? – PeeJay 09:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I only saw what was posted on WP:ARV, and what I was then was edit warring; There was no clear cut "vandalism" from your opponent. I've blocked him for one day due to breaking 3rr. →AzaToth 13:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I would say that creating an article intended to duplicate content elsewhere in the encyclopaedia and then ignoring other editors' attempts to tell him so counts as vandalism. But then I guess that's why I'm not an admin. – PeeJay 13:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

README.md

Thanks for your work in fixing the gadget and also writing that AN3 feature. I would have done a much worse job of it!

Do you think you could update README.md for the new build and deploy process? Thanks, — This, that and the other (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Dark Wizard

Just thought I'd be friendly and let you know you forgot to place a block template on their talk page (unless you're currently in the process of doing so.) =) - Amaury (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

For vandalism only accounts, I don't see any reason to make a separate talk page notice. They'll get a notice why they are blocked when they try to edit. →AzaToth 23:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha. All the other admins I've seen block people for vandalism-only do leave notices, but I guess that makes you unique, which isn't bad. =) - Amaury (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Example

It looks like something went wrong with this edit and this one too. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed :) →AzaToth 23:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

ANEW

You might want to look at some of the latest reports filed at WP:ANEW. They appear to be using Twinkle and having some problems. One is significantly malformed, but I suspect it's at least partly the fault of the reporter. However, in this one, the reporter complains about Twinkle. Also, in each of them, there's no link or diff for "Previous version reverted to".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna look into the "Previous version reverted to" issue, find a good way to solve the issue without people having to enter a diff manually. For the issue last report talks about, I think I know what's the problem is (I list the ten latest post instead of like all post made in the last 24/48 hours). (Didn't know the board was called ANEW as well :/ →AzaToth 15:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello AzaToth. Is there any way for me to construct a dummy 3RR report and not submit anything to the board? For example, to create a draft report on my user talk? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Aza, you might take a look at Slakr's 3RR reporting tool. See http://toolserver.org/~slakr/3rr.php. If there is a confusing 3RR case where it is difficult to count reverts, I would tend to use this. Slakr's tool would be even better if it could mark the listing to show which reverts were consecutive. Under the policy, consecutive edits by the same person count as at most one revert. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
For initial testing I was using Firefox scratchpad and prefixed the submission with my user page directly in the code. For consecutive edits, I'll see what can be done. →AzaToth 13:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Aza, I have submitted a real report using Twinkle here. Using the tool and seeing the result helps. So, here are my comments:

  • The reverts should be listed oldest first.
    • I can do that →AzaToth 20:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You should sign my name at the end of my comments.
    • Sure, just need to make sure I don't double sign, and sign when no comment is made. →AzaToth 20:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Twinkle did not give me anything to choose from on "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute ...". Worse, it gave me a warning that I hadn't done anything, even though I couldn't. I'm guessing that maybe you just look at the article talk page, whereas here I attempted to resolve the problems at the reported user's talk page. There should be some way for me to provide any link anywhere that points to an effort by me to resolve the dispute.
    • I based it on the original comment "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page", thus I assumed any discussion must have had taken place on the article talk page. If that's not the case, I could add a free form field. →AzaToth 20:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It help alot, haven't figured out a way yet to solve the "original revision" issue. →AzaToth 20:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, was the change for the consecutive edits good or bad you think?`→AzaToth 20:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I figured you hadn't found a way to resolve the original revision issue and didn't see any need to belabor that point. :-) The most typical places for resolving disputes are on the article talk page or the user's talk page, but it can happen elsewhere. I don't know if there's some way to list those two places as possibilities but also permit the reporter to pick another place. If that's not too complicated, either for you or for the reporter, that would probably be ideal. There were no consecutive edits in this instance, so if you made a change to that, I couldn't test it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The consecutive edits is only revealed on the resulting report, like in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:AfricaTanz_reported_by_User:Taroaldo_.28Result:_Blocked.29 →AzaToth 21:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Except for the same chronological order problem, they look good to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Made implementations for the points now. →AzaToth 22:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

RPP submission

OK, I noticed the decline. I'll ring RPP again if anything bigger comes up. Thanks, smileguy91talk 15:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Capscap

Hi, Aza, I was going to decline the unblock request by this user. However, on the off chance that the block was "unintentional", as the user claims, I thought I'd come here first. I've already reviewed the report filed against another user at ANEW and left a note on that report. Capscap was participating in the discussion at ANEW. I can see at a glance that Capscap has made many edits within a 24-hour window, although I haven't verified that there were four "reverts". I'll wait to do anything until I hear from you, although another admin may decline the request in the meantime. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw that he had made many reverts last 24 hours, and while one was marked vandalism, it wasn't clearly vandalism:

regards, →AzaToth 18:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've declined the unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sync

Could you please sync the gadget? — This, that and the other (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done →AzaToth 15:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 protests in Turkey

Can you look at this edit too? I reverted that blanking before. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Block consultancy

Aza, I'm sure you meant well, but you aren't supposed to accept an unblock request without first consulting with the blocking admin ("Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter" - WP:BLOCK). I'm surprised you did it on your own.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, was some time since I unblocked someone. Offcourse I missed something important :( →AzaToth 23:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Sadly now when reading WP:BLOCK#Unblocking it's pretty ambiguous, as the first section gives impressions that an uninvolved admin can independently decide to unblock, and it's only in the second section the "administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." (you are not fully independent then). Well, I'm gonna ponder on the exact meaning of the text and try to figure out what the spiritual meaning of it exactly is. →AzaToth 00:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Happy pondering. I am not independent at all regarding the unblock request. I am permitted to accept an unblock request, but I am not permitted to decline. Orlady agreed with you, if that's any comfort (it's not to me ).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
And I do believe that Kiefer was edit warring. 3R, for instance, identified any revert as counting up to 3 (so to speak), but even without the bright line it seems to me that the history is indicative enough of edit warring. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it is time for you to read the article and its history, Drmies, before shooting off your mouth again as a martinet, which really is not a style becoming to you.
I also asked that anybody serious consider the history of WP's shitty articles on factional disputes on much more important organizations (with extensive high-quality reliable sources) to understand why nobody should be basing organizational histories on "common knowledge". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Truncated the signature.

Is this↓↓ fine now

Mr T(Talk?)

It is 189 bytes. Mr T(Talk?) 09:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's fine, remember though that I don't have "Arial Narrow", i.e. dont expect people to have a specific font. →AzaToth 10:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Airway (aviation)

Four years ago, you tagged Airway (aviation) as confusing. There is nothing on the talk page identifying any problem. If you still find the article confusing, please identify specific questions and post on Talk:Airway (aviation). Thank you. 75.208.176.27 (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey AzaToth

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) 21:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AzaToth/Archives/2013/June&oldid=1140176038"