User talk:Mr. Stradivarius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Gypsyjiver)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page! Pull up a chair, and feel free to ask me anything.

Copyvio in List of DOS commands[edit]

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius

How do you do?

It appears we have a full-scale copyvio problem in List of DOS commands article. The entire article and all its revisions are the problem and what is not the result of copy & paste cannot survive a WP:CSD#G1 deletion on its own.

The problem is that the source from which the copyright violation has occurred is not on the web, but the documentation pages of MS-DOS and PC-DOS, so I can't use {{Db-g12}}. I've taken screenshots of these pages on MS-DOS 6.22 and made them available for your perusal: [1]

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I've looked at the files, and I agree that those are clear copyright violations. I've reverted back to the latest semi-clean version, removed the obvious copyvio from that, and restored all the non-copyrighted content that I could. I revdelled the rest, although some early revisions still remain. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
You found a clean revision? That's pretty impressive! You must've read hundreds of revisions.
I wondering if I can have your advice too: What think is best to do with the remaining of the article? Clean, sweep and improve, or nominate in AfD for WP:NOTMANUAL violation?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: I'd lean towards clean, sweep and improve, although there might be a case for deletion. If you think it should be deleted it would be better to nominate it, so that you don't waste a lot of effort improving it only to have it deleted later. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly the concern. Maybe I should consult someone who is both an admin and is knowledgeable about the computing landscape. Trouble is: I don't know such a person. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: In that case, just nominate it, and note your concerns in the nomination statement. It's not the end of the world if something goes to AfD and doesn't get deleted, and if you explain your reasons for nominating it clearly, then people aren't likely to hold it against you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Stradivarius, I see that you removed alot of copyrighted stuff from the List of DOS commands article. Although this leaves the article in a horrible state right now, it was definitely necessary - thanks for that. However, I'm somewhat unhappy with the edit summary you left with your 2014-09-10T11:12:29 edit indicating that several editors had copied and pasted docs directly. I am monitoring the article for quite some while and I'm quite sure that the only editor who added copyrighted material was User:Asmpgmr back in mid 2002. The text he added was directly copied from the built-in help of IBM PC DOS. While this text can be found in several books and hundreds of places online and PC DOS is an abandoned product, this does not make it free to use for everyone, of course. Back then I asked him to stop doing this several times but he said he would have been the lead developer of PC DOS 7 (which I have verified to be true) and that it would be okay for him to use it, so I gave up on this always hoping someone with enough time at hands would come along rewriting it.
Anyway, the reason I am approaching you is because as it stands right now, even edits before the 2002-07-04 cannot be viewed any more, although they are not affected by Asmpgmr's edits. Perhaps you can do something about it by narrowing down the removed edits to those actually affected. And perhaps you could even improve your edit summary so that it no longer blames a whole group of editors who have contributed to this article over the many years of its existance for what a single editor did. Thanks for your consideration. Greetings, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Matthiaspaul: Unfortunately, my edit summary is accurate. While most of the copy-pasted docs were added by Asmpgmr, there were also other copy-pasted docs added much earlier by other editors. The first was xcopy, added by an IP in this edit (admin-only link, although the edit summary is pretty clear). That was later removed, but by the time it had gone the format command had also been copy-pasted from the docs, so there wasn't a clean revision in between. I've saved all the clean revisions I could find, but unfortunately they were only at the very start of the edit history, before 2006. I also saved all the non-copyrighted text from the revision before Asmpgmr, but there may still be some useful content that was added and then removed during the revisions I've deleted. If there are any revisions you would like to see, I'll be happy to email the text to you. Also, if Asmpgmr really does own the copyright to the docs, then that may mean that we can use them. I think we would need to verify this with Microsoft through OTRS, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Stradivarius. Even though I was monitoring the article for quite some while didn't realize the even older copyvios. Thanks for the explanations. While I don't have the time to work on the article right now, I probably will at a later stage. Therefore, it would be great if you could send me the contents of the article immediately before the removal of copyvios (2014-09-10) to see if some more stuff would be salvagable. In addition to this, I would also appreciate if you could tell me what was added by User:Ggb667 in his 2014-05-08T19:33:11‎ edit (as he left a somewhat cryptic message on my talk page and I can't help him without knowing what he added originally). Thanks alot and greetings, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
@Matthiaspaul: Ok, I've sent you both of those by email. Let me know if you didn't get them, and let me know if there's anything else you want me to send you. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Generic Wikipedia point of view guidance[edit]

Hi, I saw you leave a comment on one of the pages I left a message on -- I'd appreciate a bit of guidance on how to decide if something merits an article or if it is better to merge. For the instance I am interested in, there's been a historical event where during a military operation to occupy a strip of land -- this lasted a couple weeks or so (I actually haven't checked the exact time frame yet). Anyway, there were acts of retribution. Unwarranted violence in exchange for unwarranted violence. Two localities are mentioned as places where such killings occurred. One historian scholar source was examined and found to lump all such killings into a single paragraph, mentioning the two localities (few days apart) with a joint number of casualties for the two. I believe the counter claim against merger, that the killings are written to have occurred a few days apart -- does not warrant two separate, yet pretty much identical articles. I'd appreciate your guidance on how Wikipedia deals with this matter. Regards. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi MarciulionisHOF! The question of whether Wikipedia can have a stand-alone article about something is decided by the notability policy. I quote: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." There is some more guidance in the policy about what all those terms mean, so it is worth a read. Also, we have a specific guideline for the notability of events, which seems to be relevant here. And finally, I recommend asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to see what the editors there say. There are a lot of editors there who are seriously knowledgeable about military history and how to write articles on it, so they will be able to give you more specific guidance than I can here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Seemed like very good suggestions -- but nobody cares(?) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: I've taken a look at the merge discussion at Talk:Khan Yunis massacre#Merge, and it looks like there isn't any consensus to merge the pages at the moment. From looking at the articles, it looks like there is enough detail in the sources used to support them as stand-alone articles, so unless there is a consensus to merge them anyway, I'm afraid there's not much you can do. Try not to take it personally - it's not possible to have every discussion on Wikipedia go your way. You might also try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine to see if there are other interested editors there, though. If you do so, it's polite to leave a note at the merge discussion to say where you've advertised it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. A big problem with Israel related articles is that some of them were written, at least in part, with a certain political perspective in mind (some parts can be seen to have an agenda). I appreciate that you gave it a quick look. This helps me re-evaluate the terms in which I describe the problem to the community who might not be interested in reading the actual books involved (I wasn't interested so why would they?). I will re-establish the conversation in a manner that will break down the sources better -- this will, hopefully, help outsiders have an easier understanding why there's not enough "significant coverage in reliable sources" for two separate articles. Certainly, an article which uses for its main source, written as fact, one politically motivated cartoon-book that was done 50 years after the events -- see references section "Sacco", and 2 refs to in with Haaretz, is not a great way to write encyclopedic values about historical events. Regards, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I've now published a request for comment on the military forum (that leads here). I'm not sure if people will respond despite the more organized presentation. Perhaps I should publish this further. To be frank, I'd hate to publish in a Palestine/Israel page, where all the editors with a heavy political bias might impose silliness, such as support of a comic-book with stories and exaggerations collected 50 years after the events for reporting in a "neutral" voice of history. e.g. "The group was then ordered to walk, hands against the wall, whilst continuously shot at from fixed machine gun positions." (ref: comic-book). The entire section doesn't have a single disclaimer. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the military history area is the wrong venue (might be more about how military tactics/weaponry/etc. have evolved around the years more than about history in battles). Is there another history forum (hopefully, not one filled with politically motivated cheeseheads as I'd expect in the Arab/Israel/Palestine ones) to request public participation? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Holocaust researchers still collect oral reports from survivors of that period for many reasons, including shame, silence or that they were never asked. None of those stories are ipso facto 'true' but they enter into the archives as historical memories that, sifted, help increase our knowledge of many specific events not recorded by the Nazi archives. This is exactly what went on with Sacco's research: he set down the memories, and used a comic format to visualize them. I know of many WW2 veterens who only referred back to the horrors they witnessed very late in life. These reports are treated with respect and can be used with attribution. Palestinians must not invariably be held to hostage as not reportable because they are an 'unreliable' people, or whatever.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You have a lot of nerve with some of your comparisons. 50,000+ video recordings for one of the most documented events of history (My grandmother gave a recorded testimony). You compare this with an Israel-disputed event with what documentation exactly? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Marciulionis, you asked me for my advice, and I'll give it again: I think a little bit of WP:LETGO may work wonders here. Posting angry messages here (or elsewhere on Wikipedia, for that matter), however, is not going to help. The best way of fixing this situation is to accept that the consensus is against you and move on. As I said, this kind of thing happens on Wikipedia all the time, so you shouldn't take it personally. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You are right about one thing. There's not much point in complaining. No one cared when it was clear as day so why would anyone care now. I'll just open that source for wider discussion. Any consensus obtained there, I will respect. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to thank you for efforts to direct me in the right path. I have opened at WP:RSN and there appears to be clear consensus against using the comic-book in neutral voice of history. I am very new to English Wikipedia and have had another issue, which is more troubling, and I would appreciate your insightful comments on best ways of handling this complex issue. I am noting a couple admins so they see my attempts to improve future collaboration. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The complexity involved here is that people jump to the wrong conclusions based on shallow understanding of the material and bad faith (no offense intended). I had linked to the discussion part, my diff above includes a link where I add the full explanation to my userpage. Thank you for your consideration. I am very much open to suggestions on improving this, in hopes that no one will assume I think one side or the other is evil. It is merely a longstanding dispute over self determination in the same territory. That people on both sides do terrible things cannot be disputed. That I have bad intentions and have called someone an antisemite, is wholly incorrect. Thanks in advance. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: Sorry, I'm not quite following you. From your messages here, I gather you have some sort of dispute with the editors that you mentioned in your first diff, and I'm guessing that it also has something to do with the merge proposal that you made. However, I'm not sure exactly what the problem is. It's probably just me being dense, but could you give me some more context? I'll be able to give you the best advice if I have all the details. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 07:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to keep it short, hopefully not too short.
In my one month of editing, a couple instances occurred when editors alleged my logic/intention is to portray Palestinians as antisemitic (one at the RSN).
First instance:
  • Early in my edits, I opened a section asking about how to handle a contentious issue: Gaza support regarding attacks on Israeli civilians. Another editor (let's call him 'editor-A') jumped to conclusion (based on 'civilians' in the title) that I had intentions of smearing the Palestinians as antisemitic. editor-A followed that allegation with information I am fully aware of: that they have national aspirations and its just people supporting their "resistance" in conflict with an occupying power. I took offense since I was new here and did not expect such allegations. Taking offense was my mistake. In my complaints, I explained my offense at this allegation as being caricaturized. A typecast in offensive pro-Palestinian caricatures on Jews.[2] A crying-Jew caricature. My explanation was perceived in bad faith, as though the cartoon is antisemitic (it is not), and as if I was calling editor-A an antisemite. An admin, Bishonen, left a warning on my talk page for just that (we've been in prolonged discussion since then -- I still hope he will amend his warning as it is derived from misunderstanding and reflects badly on me).
Second instance:
  • I've recently opened an RSN regarding a comic-book which was used in a 'neutral voice of history'. On the RSN, another editor (let's call him 'editor-B'), jumped to similar conclusions as editor-A (based on other content). editor-B followed (and still does) this allegation with assertions on his belief that I shouldn't edit Israel related articles because allegedly, I don't possess the necessary neutrality and detachment. I see it proper to add he was the only one stating clear support of the comic-book -- 5 others (myself included) disagreed.[3] As of now, only editor-A has joined him in clear support of the source.
Considering how quickly editors (and admins) can have a momentary shallow understanding* of text and situation and jump to bad faith conclusions, I thought this matter deserves a userpage clarification and asked everyone involved for their perception, advice, and suggestions. editor-B maintains his displeasure, but did help bring about one good point. Progress already. I hope further input, and a retraction by Bishonen will follow.
* editor-B didn't know the difference between 'Palestinian muqawama' and 'Palestinians'.
* admin Bishonen didn't know the type-cast example with the crying-Jew cartoon was not calling anyone antisemitic. Portraying someone as crying "antisemitism" in the Israeli-Palestinian context is still a misplaced assumption of bad faith.
Hope this wasn't too long, let me know if something needs further clarification. It appears I could use some changes to my link, but I wouldn't want to write anything that can be misunderstood as a personal attack on anyone. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: Thank you for the further background. I'm still not exactly sure what outcome you are looking for, however. I see that you would like an apology from Bishonen, but I can't force her to apologise about anything that she's not really sorry about (see also point 16 of the Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia). Other than that, what result are you looking for? To get support for your merge request? To get a user blocked? To make a specific content change in an article? To have the RSN discussion closed? To get a useful result, I think we need to have a clear goal in mind. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, "Editor B" chiming in here. MarculionisHOF, If different editors, based on different episodes, reach independently the same conclusion about some of your edits, then perhaps the problem is more with your edits (or the way you express things) than with those editors. For the record, "editor-B" (me) does know the difference between Palestininas and the Palestinian muqawama, but they fail to see where you make that distinction in your statement on your user page. Please don't spread incorrect information about other editors. As for the RSN discussion, it is quite clear that most of the early comments were incorrectly informed by your biased presentation of the situation, with one of the commenters dismissing the book it because he believed the source to be a novel, when it is clearly a work of non-fiction. In the discussion, multiple editors (including me, but also Kingsindian, GRuban and Nishidani) believe that it should be treated as a source, not the only source, perhaps not a completely neutral source, but not as just a comic that can be mentioned in a "in popular culture" section (your suggestion). There is no "clear consensus against using the comic-book in neutral voice of history." There is consensus that it should be balanced with other sources. Fram (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: Yes, I had worked out that you were editor B. Who is editor A, though? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I should reread what Marculionis wrote, either Nishidani or Bishonen, can't be bothered at the moment though :-) Fram (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Editor-A is Nishidani who responded to a section on a talk page with title "Unanimous support for attacking Israeli civilians - proposed new section". Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius:, yes. There is a clear goal (no sanctions involved). As I explained to admin Bishonen here, I hope to have a quick way of dissolving situations where editors with less than perfect knowledge on the topic matter (myself included) make bad-faith assumptions, followed by allegations towards me (i.e. allegations that I am doing something with intent to smear Palestinians as antisemitic, which would certainly be outside the scope of the project). These allegations are misguided and a violation of WP:ARBPIA#Decorum. Editors should stick to content, not perceived intentions. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

First update here. Probably far from perfect, but I think it makes progress. Let me know where else you I can improve it to reduce (and/or quickly diffuse) bad-faith allegations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: I would remove that entire section from your user page. It's not necessary for working on articles, and it makes you look like you're trying to apologise for your taking offence in a very round-about way, which in my opinion is just making the situation worse. You're better off without it. After that, I would just carry on working on articles. Perhaps you could choose one where you aren't involved in a content dispute - being in a content dispute is always tiring, and choosing a new article will help you to get a fresh perspective on things. If it's a stub, or a new article, you could try and get it to DYK, and if not, you could even try and get it to Good Article status. And if you do get involved in more content disputes, you would do well to remember the advice in my favourite Wikipedia essay, WP:GLUE. It's always worked for me. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the time and sincere efforts to help. The text is actually, not an apology but an explanation that offense here is poorly contrived. I've come to terms with the idea that editors have some poor habits when reading content posted by someone who knows what he's talking about regarding Palestinian militancy (I'm sure there's soe bad habits on the other side of the spectrum as well). Sadly, the conflict is far from clean (on both sides). As someone with a lot of knowledge and interest in this information, leaving it entirely then, promotes rejecting any of the "real" (read: 'not very nice') source based content on basis of editorial bias, that presenting e.g. Mahmoud Abbas's claiming Israel is committing genocide, has intentions to smear the Palestinians/Israelis/Arabs/Muslis/etc. I will review your glue link and will try to expand into other subjects I find interest in. I'll have to think long and hard about the suggestion to just remove it rather than rephrase it. I recall editor-B (if I' not mistaken) said something similar, though he's shown bad faith throughout our encounters. Best, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism ... or something weirder?[edit]

Hello, MS.

CL here. I just reverted an edit by 602p that seems plain vandalism to me ... unless what we connect to a computer is called a "leopard", not a "keyboard" and what I have come to know as "smartphone" is actually a "pokédex"!

Still, I've been looking at his contrib log and this certain behavior looks weird to me. Perhaps, your experience in Wikipedia might tell you something that I don't know.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Yep, that's vandalism. The rest of the account's edits look ok, though, which does make that edit stand out. The user looks familiar with wiki markup and with quite a few Wikipedia conventions, but we can't necessarily read too much into that. I'd do the same as you, I think - leave them a talk page warning and move on. I'd have probably made it a level one warning, though, seeing as this looks like the first vandalistic edit. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: He reads xkcd. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I don't know what to make of this xkcd piece. First, I don't know what's the comic strip talking about. Second, is there a cause-and-effect relationship between the two? If yes, which is the direction? i.e. did the vandalism occur first or was the comic piece came into being? Committing a cum hoc, ergo propter hoc here is too dangerous here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure xkcd is published three times a week, and we're now on comic number 1426. That means comic number 1031 was written about 2.5 years ago. There might be a bit of variation depending on the actual publication rate, but xkcd definitely came first. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

English-Japanese Translation Assistance[edit]

Hello Mr. Stradivarius! Would you be interested in a Japanese translation collaboration? The Japanese version of the AIG page looks like it could use some updating. Regards! MsGingerHoneycutt (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't usually work on the Japanese Wikipedia, and I'm mostly concentrating on doing Lua-related work now. You're probably better off asking somebody over there - try posting at ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion! MsGingerHoneycutt (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


Strad, did you get the email I posted to the Medcom mailing list about the chairmancy? I see it in the archives, but the lack of responses from other members makes me wonder if it went out. If you did get it, is the lack of response an indication that Medcom is, as Steve thought but we resisted, moribund? Just needs new blood? Something else? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: Yes, I got it. So, moribund rather than technical error. It might be time to overhaul MedCom, but for now another message to the list saying "Hey, this chairmancy stuff is important!" will probably doing the trick. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Done, many thanks. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your advice in mid-July. Have finally found the time to start making some requests for edits and have already had some made. Thanks. Easel14 (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Easel14: No worries. I'd advise you to also disclose your conflict of interest on your user page, and to ask before making any edits you think might be controversial. Also, see Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for some Very Useful Pointers. And remember, my talk page is always open. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

John Walsh[edit]

Just out of curiosity, how helpful did you find the 3RR report in making your decision? I thought it was irrelevant, but I'm always willing to be wrong...on occasion... :) Dreadstar 19:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: Not all that much. I found the other discussions to be more useful for judging consensus, particularly the most recent talk page discussion. I find that it helps to let people know that you've done the legwork though. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 22:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Totally understand...and you did great work always! Dreadstar 23:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Subject bar doesn't render on mobile[edit]

Hey, sorry to bother you with this, but you're the most recent editor of {{Subject bar}} and template talk pages are often undersubscribed. I was looking at Radium in the mobile view and I noticed that the subject bar template doesn't render. It looks like the mobile CSS suppresses navboxes and because the subject bar declares itself to be a navbox, it won't show up. That sort of sucks for pages which use it in the "see also" section, because you get an empty section on mobile. To be clear I don't think this is your fault or that your change had anything to do with this (maybe it did, I didn't look :) ). I just figured I'd give someone a heads up who might know/care about it. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: Yep, you're right that it {{subject bar}} doesn't show up there because it uses the "navbox" HTML class. You're also right in guessing that the subject bar template did this before I converted it to Lua. The problem is a fundamental incompatibility with navbox-like templates and mobile devices - even if we were to alter the classes to make the template display on mobile, it would still have significant display problems because of its width. The mobile people haven't managed to find a fix to make wide templates display nicely on mobile (and I don't blame them, as that's a very hard problem), so they worked around the issue by making those templates not display at all. Personally I think the solution would be to involve the community in making mobile-friendly templates, but it's not clear to me exactly what the best way to do it would be. This is a big topic for discussion, and it's probably better off at WP:VPT to start with, until the devs and the community can work out a way to move forward on it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I think you're right that the place to start is VPT and the best (although still hard) way forward is making navboxes more mobile friendly. I'll try and see how best to broach that and which solutions will be associated with the least pain. If I can think of something that might work I'll spin up a discussion on VPT. Have a good weekend! Protonk (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello,sir,I appreciate your undo.Maybe,this might be my immaturity.I was just trying to ask for page protection.I also ask you for improvement of the article.How about uploading some photos.Would you like do it by yourself?While uploading them,also include the photo related with sessya in Nepal bhasa>Literature.I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. Jojolpa (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jojolpa: Page protection is requested at WP:RFPP, but it doesn't look like it is necessary on the Shrestha article right now. And sorry, I'm a busy doing other things on Wikipedia, so I don't have time to help out with the article myself. Take a look at Wikipedia:Introduction for more about contributing to Wikipedia, and see the file upload wizard at Wikimedia Commons for how to upload files. And if you have any questions, please ask at the help desk. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your graph expertise[edit]

Hello Mr. Stradivarius; The nice graphs by EngineeringGuy on Wikipedia look like they could be improved with your expertise. Could you look at this diff[4]. The fix might be simple to save on the graphic visual space on the Wikipedia page, though I don't know how to do it. Maybe you'll have a good idea. Cheers. FelixRosch (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

League tables[edit]


I have been involved/helped a user with developing tables (mainly league) but also group stage tables, when I now came across your module Module:League table. I looked to see where it was used and saw it was never used (created about a year ago), but it was linked to from an old discussion at your talkpage archieve and at Village Pump archive and then I remembered you came with idea of LUA table. That never happened (at least I thought so) and an other solution with switches was implemented instead to only display a part of a table for club season articles.

For some time ago after several league table discussions at football project an other user @CRwikiCA: started creating an other LUA module at Module:Football table (now moved to Module:Sports table). It has been a lot of work and we have taken it to the football project on several occasions for consensus regarding layout and such. Now it is currently rated alpha and tested at some articles before taking it to footy for consensus to put into wider use.

Thought I should inform you since you seem to have good knowledge in LUA and has also started to implement a table-module. Perhaps the pages should be merged or something? And with your knowledge of LUA feel free to look at the code and see how it looks.

Regards, QED237 (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Equafy I added external references as well as links. Can we remove the notability tag

Sslavov (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)Sslavov

@Sslavov: Sorry, it looks like the article got deleted. You can always submit it again, though - I recommend using articles for creation. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Need your help in editor retention capacity[edit]


This Codename Lisa. God, I am dropping from fatigue. Hope you are not.

I think I need a bit of help with Janagewen in editor retention capacity. He has been obsessing with Template:.NET Framework version history and making wrong editorial decisions every time. I need to correct his mistakes without WP:BITE. I am afraid I might fail. I have so much on my plate that I definitely need help. Hopefully, all you need to do is communication and talking about policy. It is delicate but easy.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: If you're getting fatigued, try emptying out your watchlist. It's amazing how not being distracted by a thousand watchlist notices every day can help you to focus on what's really important. It's ok to leave the monitoring of articles to the recent changes patrollers - they generally do a pretty good job. As for Janagewen, I'll have a look at the situation and see what I think. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Already done that.The fatigue isn't caused by Wikipedia. I'm already down to a handful of edits per day and regret that I am not a principle editor in Windows 10 article. (I was a principle editor in Windows 8 series of articles.) Plus, I expected to be able to learn Lua and handle the phase two of hatnote templates myself. Hasn't happened yet. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that there was a phase two of hatnote-template conversion. :) What did you have in mind? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I remember having said "But I don't suggest tackling the entire Category:Hatnote templates all at once. For the start, {{Main}}, {{See also}}, {{Further}} and {{Details}} would do admirably." Well, I was planning to tackle that category. But whatever. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
After looking, I think your message on Janagewen's talk page should be enough for now. It might just be enough to sort the problem out. If not, we will be better able to think of dispute resolution steps etc. after Janagewen replies or next edits the template. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, give it 24 hours. I am having two notifications which I am trying hard not to peek at. I suspect it has happened. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: Janagewen has replied on their talk page now, and it looks promising to me. I think it should work out fine if you just talk through it with them, but let me know if you think any further intervention is needed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
And Fleet Command has engaged, leading to the exchange of some juicy profanity! I'd say we're having a WP:SHARK BITE instead of just WP:BITE. Not that I entirely feel sorry for either. I am pulling out of that discussion. Date styles are not worth it. Thanks for your cooperation.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
P.S. You know, if I were an admin, I'd have revdel both the contribution containing the profanity and the name of the contributor before FC gets to log in, see it and go all WP:MASTADON. A very effective prevention... Codename Lisa (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the boat on that one. Janagewen has now reported themselves on WP:AN3, so I'll let the patrolling admin puzzle that one out, I think. From their latest posts it looks like we might have lost them, but I'll keep monitoring and leave a message if it looks as though it will be useful. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-42[edit]

08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

LUA magic[edit]

Hey Mr. Stradivarius, thanks for your work on the find sources AFD template. I was wondering if you had some time to look at {{GANentry}} (as it is invoked ~500 times on the good article nominations page) and probably contributes to the hefty load times for that page. Protonk (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: That's actually a relatively simple template, so converting it to Lua might not save as much time as you think. Also, doing it properly would involve updating Module:PageLinks and all the related templates like Template:Ln and Template:La, and might take a while. You might save some processing time by taking out all those span tags, though - the MediaWiki software needs to validate all of them, which will take a while if there are 500 transclusions of the template on a page, and most users won't notice the difference as you have to specifically style those links in your personal CSS page to see any effect. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Ye gods that is a lot of span tags. I'll ask around to see why they were added in the first place. Protonk (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@Protonk: They were added by Technical 13 to make an optional condensed display of links. I remember this as I added similar code for him at {{la}}. At the time, though, I didn't realise the load that it put on the parser - every tag has to be validated with a regular expression, and if there are a lot of those on a page it can take some time to run. It also adds quite a lot towards the post-expand include size, which with {{la}} started becoming a problem on the AfD log pages. I've made a version of GANentry without the span tags at Template:GANentry/sandbox, and it parses WP:GAN in about three seconds, compared to the current template's six seconds. (If both these figures seem generally fast to you, it's because I have HHVM switched on in my beta features.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I've got HHVM turned on as well (It is better than sliced bread) and 6 seconds for the current page is about what I'm seeing. Protonk (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Mr. Stradivarius, I've been thinking about ways to condense that... I've decided that I'm just going to make a userscript and by doing so, I believe half of the spans will go away. I'll just have the script replace the whole word with the abbr. I'll work something up in the sandbox and send you an edit request. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-43[edit]

13:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:CIA World Factbook[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:CIA World Factbook. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible to whitelist the addition of links to when they are protocol-relative?[edit]

Hello Mr.S. Please see this request at VPT. URLs beginning with are being accepted with no CAPTCHA but the same thing without the http: is still being flagged. Since you are the last person to edit Mediawiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist maybe you have an idea. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've replied over at VPT. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you do me a favor?[edit]


Seeing as you have CheckUser rights, I'd like to know if you'd do something for me.

Levdr1lostpassword has accused me of having a sock puppet account under the name of Fruit is for life and for the articles also. Could you please do CheckUser to show him once and for all that the vandal account (which was CLEARLY designed just to be a vandal account) isn't me?

The sooner there's concrete proof that I'm innocent, the sooner this thing can be put to bed, and the sooner he can apologize to me for making a false accusation about me and disparaging my character.

Thank You.

Vjmlhds (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I don't have CheckUser rights. You probably want one of the users listed here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: Actually, no. From WP:CHK, On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon his or her request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014[edit]