User talk:Zackmann08

User	Talk	Awards	Sources	Contacts	Notes	Templates/Tools	Bookmarks	My Sandbox

---

Possible improvement to Geobox building migration

In this edit to Theatre Camões, you appear to have removed the |municipality= information, which could have been placed into |location_city=. If your goal in these migrations is to preserve as much editor-contributed information as possible, an improvement to your script or process might be possible. (Here's another edit of the same type.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: doing my best but feedback like this is always appreciated! Thanks much. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: any chance I could enlist your assistance in doing some of these conversions? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Beyond my technical abilities, sorry. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Really? Most of them I'm doing manually at this point... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleting information during infobox conversions

I left a message at Talk:North Bend Rail Trail but now I see you've done a bunch of these conversions in the last day: Please compare the information in the Geobox here to the information you retained when you converted to infobox. There is a lot missing! Was this intentional? I've been quietly observing the discussions about geobox/infobox conversions to articles about rivers. My greatest fear about infobox conversions is that a decade of careful work by countless editors will be cast aside, too quickly to be noticed at the article level, in the process. That appears to have happened with your recent edits to articles about protected areas, and I hope you will fix the damage. --TimK MSI (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@TimK MSI: you really didn't need to post this in 3 locations... 1 was enough. I'm working on it now. That being said, just a reminder that you are more than capable of fixing it... I understand this was my mistake and I'm happy to fix it, but not sure why you didn't just fix it yourself. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Another conversion loosing information is this one Keith D (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Keith D and TimK MSI: a couple of things.

1. Thanks for bringing these to my attention. I'm doing my best with these conversions but I am very far from perfect and am relying on people like yourselves to catch my mistakes.
2. Please do try to be bold and FIXIT when you can. This isn't a case of "don't make me do all the work"!! Please don't take it that way. I get the "I broke it so I should fix it". My point is more a cost benefit. How much time does it take you to list the pages for me to fix vs fixing them yourself? That being said... Feel free to list as many pages as you would like. If you literally want to leave me a list of pages that I broke I will be more than happy to go through them 1 by 1 and fix them.
3. Some information is going to be lost. There is just some information that was placed in {{Geobox}}es that was really never meant to be there. For example some pages used the geobox to list the park hours... Not something we need.
4. There are also some style differences. {{Infobox protected area}} does not have separate rows for country, state, county, etc. So if you look at North Bend Rail Trail for example. I intentionally removed the list of counties because I felt that it looked worse to list them out like that, but that is just my opinion. More than happy to restore that information.

If you have any other comments, questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to drop me a line. I'll do my best to fix and address! :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't mean to pile on here, but I've noticed your conversions as well. I work on pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and fix reference errors, like these - - and you're quickly filling that category up with your converts. In the future, in those articles that you are converting that use a list defined reference format, if you're not planning on using the refs in the new infobox, could you scroll down to the bottom of the page while you are editing it and comment out those refs not being used any longer, by inserting <!-- in front of the beginning ref tag and inserting --> behind the closing ref tag. For example, like this. I will fix the articles that are currently in that category. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Isaidnoway: seeing as I kinda screwed the pooch here, I don't feel you are piling on. I appreciate your sensitivity to that though. Also appreciate you taking the time to fix the issues for me. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Should we be using another infobox for Simpson Pavilion please? I see you have nominated this infobox for deletion--is there a better option?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: there is nothing wrong with that page or its template. {{Geobox}} is being nominated for deletion. It is related to template used on the page so that is why you are seeing the message. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I am wondering which infobox we will be using if this one gets deleted though? Or will it remain the same, only with different characteristics (for example we removed "religion" from the biographical infobox a while back)?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: nothing will change about that article... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks. I am not sure what will get deleted then.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

Briarcliff Manor was recently unlocked, but that doesn't mean you can resume the edit war over templates. Talk it out, or the next step might be a block. Jonathunder (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: consensus was reach and the user is just insisting on having things 100% his way. I'm removing myself from the situation. I am going to file a formal complaint and then refrain from ANY further edits to the page. Not the article itself nor the talk page. I'm not interested in getting slapped with sanctions because of this user. I appreciate your message and assure you I will not make any further edits to the page. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping short of three reverts. Please don't think I want to discourage you from edits to the talk page. Jonathunder (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: At this point I'm just done. This is so beyond ridiculous. The infobox has over 480,000 transclusions and this user is refusing to let it be used on "his" page because he doesn't like the formatting of one parameter. I'm the first to admit that I'm not perfect and I'm more than happy to meet people half way and to compromise. But this user has refused at every turn to compromise on ANYTHING. It has 100% been his way or it isn't happening. So I'm removing myself from the situation. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Geobox usage categories

Hello, Category:Geobox usage tracking for building type and Category:Geobox usage tracking for settlement type currently have a total of two pages in them (none in the latter). As these types are deprecated (building and settlement), the tracking categories should be removed from Template:Geobox and all pages in them should instead populate Category:Geobox usage tracking for deprecated types (as the uses are using deprecated types),. Category:Geobox usage tracking for settlement type already has a speedy deletion notice on it. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 03:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@BrandonXLF: seeing as I created the categories and am the one who tagged it for speedy deletion, I will leave them as they are right now. Once again, there are things at play here that you don't understand. Given the number of times that you have screwed this stuff up, please don't come post on my page and tell me what "should" be done. You don't know what you are talking about. K? Thanks. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Tea time

Given your comments at the Briarcliff page, here, and above, I'd suggest you consider stepping away for the moment. It's clear that you are frustrated by the various conversations going on, and as a result are snapping at other editors. Whether you feel that the objections being raised are valid or not, comments of this type are not contributing to a collegial resolution - quite the opposite. Sit back, enjoy this tea, and let others manage the discussions for a while. Best way to prevent yourself from getting burnt out and avoid saying things you may regret later. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: while I appreciate the sentiment, I think the comments that were directed at me were wildly out of line and given that, my response was more than appropriate. That being said, I think a rootbeer float might be in order so perhaps I will step back for a bit. Thanks for the kind message. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Closure of your ANI complaint

Hello Zackmann08. I put a closure box on the complaint you filed at ANI. It looks like everyone is getting some of what they want. Keep in mind that you stated "I will not have any contact with Ɱ other then the required notification of this post". Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

That was while the complaint was playing out. I don't believe that means I'm never allowed to interact with them again does it? That being said, I'm not interested in interacting with them again but if they continue disrupting the TFD and merger process, I'm not simply going to ignore them. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You've received advice that the situation is already moving in the right direction (see comments above), and at least some editors think you are bludgeoning the process. This is not a good time for you to become aggressive. (See the comments by User:Ivanvector at ANI: "the editors working on resolving the outstanding issues could do so more efficiently without Zackmann08's obsessive interference"). If you intend to maintain a high level of activity, including criticism of others, and warnings for canvassing, I can always undo my ANI closure and let the discussion continue. It looks like you weren't sincere in your promises to step back. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I'm not really sure what you mean by not sincere? I'm not seeking any further confrontation with M. However, if he chooses to comment on a discussion I am involved in, I'm not going to simply ignore it. I feel that particular ANI had run its course, as the person who filed it I have no objection to you closing it. If you want to reopen it then be my guest. Not sure what my warning for canvassing has to do with anything at all. Am I supposed to not warn users who are violating policy? I really don't understand what point you are trying to make. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

So your promise was only to stop contacting him for the duration of that single ANI thread? Not much of an offer. I happened to notice that you did not notify User:Ɱ that Template:Geobox was up for discussion at TfD even though you had just had a dispute with him at AN3 about usage of that very template. I notified him myself. When User:Qui1che complained about not being notified you said @Qui1che: get the hell over yourself. It is not my responsibility to ping you. Given what an absolute pill you have been through the entire process, why on earth would I go out of my way to help you? (at Template talk:Infobox river). It does not sound like your diplomatic skills are getting much exercise these days. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: well it isn't my responsibility to notify M about that template being up for TFD. He can see that for himself. Given how disrespectful and difficult they have been, I have no interest in going out of my way to accommodate them. I'm not going to notify everyone who edits a template that there is an ongoing discussion nor should I ever be expected to. That is why the TFD process exists. The template is up for TFD and he is welcome to comment. You chose to personally notify him and that is just fine with me although his comments on the TFD clearly had nothing to do with the template itself and were purely directed at how much he dislikes me personally. So again, not sure what you point is? As for Qui1che have you read the thread??? After a lengthy process where the decision was made by dozens of editors to merge a template (including multiple senior admins), Qui1che comes in and cries foul because he wasn't personally notified. He rants for pages about how since he wasn't personaly informed of the process, he is going to go out of his way to make sure that a new template is re-created if we delete it. So, if your criticism of me is that I'm not perfectly diplomatic 100% of the time, you will get absolutely no argument from me! I make no pretense of being perfect. When a user is as much of a pain in the ass as they have been, I'm not going to spend time being perfectly diplomatic with them. On the other hand when users are actually interested in working together for an actual solution, I'm more than happy to do so. Talk:Saint Sophia's Cathedral, Kiev for example. I get that you're an admin and I respect that, but I'm not really sure what your point is with all this. Finally, regarding M and my contact with them. My point is that I'm not going to go out of my way to have any contact with them. But as you just pointed out, I nominated a template for TFD. So are you suggesting that I should abstain from commenting on it at all since M has now commented and I said I wouldn't interact with them? Not sure what your point is or what you are trying to achieve. I have always and will always respect the advice and counsel, particularly of admins, so if you have actual advice, I'm all ears (well eyes). Have a good evening! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

BT Group copyright issue

You blanked the BT Group article earlier this week with a WP:COPYVIO template, but you don’t seem to have listed it at WP:Copyright problems. Are you planning to do that anytime soon? Fob.schools (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fob.schools: this is what happens when I'm doing 12 things at once. I forgot to click save on that final step. Thanks for the message! Have just filed it. WP:TROUT to me. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixing deprecated params

Here's another problematic edit: [1]. Will there ever be an end to it? My watchlist is inundated with your edits for weeks now and I rarely ever check the result cause I'm afraid of what I can find there. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: I am fixing well documented deprecations. If you don't like getting the changes in your watchlist, then don't follow the pages? I'm not sure what your point is... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

My point is that you are not fixing anything. In the best case, the resulting page will look completely the same. In all the other cases, something will be damaged or broken. There's nothing to be gained from this work. And your edits disturb a lot of people. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: you are in fact wrong. The parameters are deprecated. There is a well documented reason for removing deprecated parameters which I am happy to walk you through when you stop throwing around accusations. Additionally, your edits disturb a lot of people? You're the only person who is complaining. Have a nice day. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I remember seeing at least one other person complain the last time I visited your talk page. I'm not "throwing around accusations". Please point me to the reason. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Well for starters you can take a look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeprecatedFixerBot 3. There was a bot approved to fix the majority of the deprecations. In short, having multiple supported parameters makes a template difficult to maintain. The format of the template has changed. As you can clearly see in the diff that you linked to: 1) Parameters are no longer capitalized. 2) No longer is the template going to parse the previous and next to try to find the year which is highly prone to errors. Now you provide those values separately. Does this change the way the template renders? No it doesn't. That is the entire point of properly deprecated parameters. Nothing should change, but once all the deprecations are fixed, the old parameters will be removed. [2], [3], etc. Another example of fixing deprecated parameters can be seen at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ZackBot 12. This is a completely different infobox but is the same idea, removing support for deprecated parameters. Hope that explains it. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

[4] ← I personally think that's too drastic. There are situations when you need to add just one parameter and you just write it from memory or even guess. I'm sure many people do that. Now they will have to do extra work cause their guesses won't work and they will have to go and read the documentation. (I do that sometimes. It's not lazyness, but time management.)
But okay... --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"No longer is the template going to parse the previous and next to try to find the year which is highly prone to errors."
— I don't think the templates parse or try to find anything anywhere. Why would they do it? The old templates are told what to write in the succession fields exactly. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: ok well the templates have been updated and the transclusions all fixed. So the work is done. Sorry you disagree. In the future, raise those concerns on the template talk page, not an individual user's talk page. I'm simply carrying out the work that was requested by the template. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Chembox

We just had a discussion where we discussed that the modular design is important, and that we were not going to replace the box without that capability. You started that discussion (and I agreed that it is something to explore, but with constraints), but did not participate further to explore the concerns or propose solutions.

I disagree that an RfC that disqualifies arguments beforehand without a clear problem to solve are valid. That is up to the closing admin to decide which arguments are valid. It now almost appears as if you tried to oppose the concerns expressed in the previous discussion as ab initio not valid. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

lighthouse infobox

When you added the NRHP embedded infobox to St. Johns Light, you used the data for a different place -St. Johns River Light. One was built in 1954 and the other a century earlier. I've made the fixes. MB 01:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@MB: copy that. Thanks! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

single use

• Please do link to a guideline or policy that says: "Single-use of a template is deletable" . Are-you-fuck-ing-se-ri-ous? See this current talk. Every fucking some-months, overlapping even. Where is that rule? You did not even research. (I still know your armchair-approach armchair attitude, spoliing each and every useful maintenance). -DePiep (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)