Jump to content

User talk:Mr. Stradivarius: 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
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 17) (bot
Line 209: Line 209:
</div>
</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0693 -->
<!-- EdwardsBot 0693 -->

== Module:Documentation ==

Hi the view, edit ,history and purge buttons are not showing please could you fix the issue in [[Module:Documentation]] [[Special:Contributions/86.135.166.133|86.135.166.133]] ([[User talk:86.135.166.133|talk]]) 07:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:21, 21 January 2014


Welcome to my talk page! Pull up a chair, and feel free to ask me anything.

Template:User talk disclaimer

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Why dont change the wrong and old information to the true and new information ??!!!!

Please convert this false and shameless information of damavand elevation to the correct and new elevation that's NASA and so many competent organizations that have been calculate that , (( 5610m is false and 5671m is correct )) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horamantarh (talk • contribs) 08:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. What article are you talking about? I couldn't tell from your message. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 08:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius. You have new messages at Template_talk:Anontools.
Message added 17:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 17:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to get number 5 & 6 prerequisites for the Template editor user right?

Hi. I saw my request was rejected by you. I need your help and guide. Would you please show me some templates, diffs or edits for 5 & 6? Because I'm not familiar with them and I don't know how to do them. I need some edit examples for tutorial. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so hard, really. If you see a protected template that you would like to update, make the edit in the template's sandbox, show that your edit works by making a couple of tests in the template's test cases page, and then make an edit request so that the edit will be performed by an admin or a template editor. After you've done that a few times without your edits breaking anything, then you'll be qualified for the template editor right. Have a look at WP:TESTCASES for instructions on how to use sandbox and test cases pages, and take a look at Help:Templates for general help with template syntax. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful but it's hard to find protected templates that they require editing. I will try but I guess I will succeed to do only a few edit requests for protected templates. But will be more edits on sandboxes. On 1 February I will submit my request for granting "template editor right" again. Please consider all of my contributions in Template Namespace not just 5 & 6. Cheers. --Zyma (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Zyma: If it's hard for you to find protected templates that you want to edit, then why do you need the template editor user right? That right is only useful if you want to edit protected templates. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because I patrol templates and If I find a protected template that needs editing, I want to be able to edit that template. Also it's useful, because It allows me to do more contributes in Template Namespace plus learning new things. These are some of the reasons that I want TE right. --Zyma (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, after I got File Mover right, I do renaming process when I find files with problematic names in the articles. It helps me in File Namespace. Same for Template Editor right. It will be handy and useful when I need it. --Zyma (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that editing protected templates on Wikipedia isn't like any other aspect of editing. If you were given the template editor user right, you would have the ability to break millions of pages, so we need to know that you know what you're doing before we give you the right. If you can show that you know template syntax, that you know how to properly test your edits, and that you know what edits might be controversial, then you can have the right, no problem. If you can't show that you can do those things, then I'm afraid that you're out of luck. In the meantime, if you find a template that needs editing, you can always use the {{edit protected}} or {{edit template-protected}} templates, and someone will make the edit for you. Hope this helps. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Good notes by you. I will try to do my best and submit my request on 1 February again. No problem if I don't have this user right. Just want to get more involved in the Template Namespace. Until 1 Feb, I try to become more familiar with protected templates and learn new things. Thanks again Stradivarius. --Zyma (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Royal National Lifeboat Institution

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Protection detection

I split the protection detection out of Module:Protected edit request into Module:Effective protection level. This should make it easier to rewrite {{pp-meta}} and the rest of those templates with lua. (Also, does it look like I broke anything by doing that?) Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea - thanks for your work. At a glance, I would say that the module should probably return nil rather than the blank string for unprotected pages, as that's the normal Lua way of doing things. And some documentation would be nice. :) At the design level, I think we may need to know each separate protection level for the rewrite of {{pp-meta}}, rather than just the highest level - shall think some more about that. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Documentation's done. As for returning nil instead of '', that's a good idea, but to keep the module from being ugly, I'm going to wait until I get another MediaWiki change through before I do that. I don't see a need to return each source of protection, since it's already separated by action (so move- and semi-protected pages will work). If you think of a case that that wouldn't work for, let me know. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hello Stradivarius,

Thank you for updating content, i don't have much more experience in Wikipedia, if i have any doubt i will contact you

Thank you

Anu Vasudevan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuvb101 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request to be mediator on an accepted RFM

Hello User:Mr. Stradivarius

This is to request if you would be able to mediate for [1] which has been accepted for mediation.

All the parties to the dispute are agreeable to mediation.

Thanks (I am the filer) 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. :) I'm flattered that you asked me, but I'm afraid I will have to decline. At the moment I've been concentrating my on-wiki activities on writing Lua modules, and I would probably only do a half-baked mediation if I tried to do both mediation and module-writing at the same time. Both of those require lots of time, and mediation in particular requires you to act in a timely fashion to any problems that occur. I don't want to spread myself too thinly, and I figure that since I'm editing here as a volunteer here I may as well choose to do the activity that I enjoy doing the most. So modules it is, for now at least. I've actually been thinking of making this stance official with MedCom, but hadn't decided either way until now. Anyway, I wish you all the best in your mediation and hope that you find a mediator soon. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 20:51, Monday, August 19, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together


A few inquiries

Hi.

I am in bit of dilemma as to how to proceed with this case. An edit on 30 November 2013 has added a line of copyvio to Internet Explorer 11. I just spotted it today. The article hasn't changed much but there is a total of 23 revisions containing this copyvio. Is this case eligible for revision hiding?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, this always happens when you ask me to help you with something. :) I zapped the revisions, but then I thought better of it and restored them again - the intervening edits probably require attribution even though they're not present in the current version of the article. (WP:RD1 can't be used if there are any edits requiring attribution.) I don't think any of the policies cover this specific eventuality, though, so it might be something to bring up on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion if you would like some more clarity. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I can't complain because you fix it yourself. :) You know, once I made a slightly erroneous edit request to a template and then sent fix request shortly afterwards. So, this admin came along and said looks like I know what I am doing, so I might as well have template editor rights. Who knows? Maybe one day someone comes along and say, "Oh, looks like you know what you are doing, MS. Here, you are crat from now on! Now go fill form #23-2343-12A-CC."
Anyway, just wanted to give you an update and say "thanks". Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion said it is insignificant. Oh, and by the way, the copyright issue about one of my user pages that I brought to you is resolved, officially, in an MfD. Verdict: No violations. I have moved it to User:Codename Lisa/What if the characters of Friends TV series were Wikipedians? Well, I guess I am glad you didn't just delete it when I told you that you can do so, although you suspected it had copyright problems at the time.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to show me how to work that #23-2343-12A-CC form - I've always been wondering. ;) You know, you've been around for a while now and seem to have got to know the place quite well - have you considered running for adminship? I'm just saying that off the cuff, though, so it's not like I've done a review of your edits or anything. Perhaps you could consider doing an editor review first if you're interested? As for the advice, you're welcome, as always. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I guess "adminship" was the last thing I expected here. There were definitely times in which I wished I was an admin to clear certain backlogs like AfD, FfD, NFCR and such but I understand adminship has requirements that I so far disregarded in favor of regard for a certain area of Wikipedia. So, I am obliged to ask: What did you see in me that made you make a connection between me and adminship? (Although you are saying it was "off the cuff", I think it is worth investigation.)
One area of importance that comes to my mind right now is my 3 Personal Attack Rule (3PAR) mentality: You see, I do not tolerate bullying in workplace; if I were an admin and saw a user using pure ad hominem as the sole argument in a dispute three times in a row, I'd issue a cease-or-be-blocked ultimatum. Forth time would be block. I know it is important, but in which direction?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you've been around here for a while, it's natural to think about adminship - as you say, there are plenty of backlogs that need helping out with. Looking in to your edits a little bit, I think you might need some more experience in admin areas - I see some experience in AfD, but more would be good, and I don't see any much speedy deletion tagging. You're better off getting someone else to look at FfD, but probably more experience there would be good as well. As for your 3PAR rule, that could be controversial. It's fine to have rules of thumb like that, but if your rule of thumb ever ends up conflicting with policy or with consensus, then you need to go with the policy/consensus rather than with your rule. Your approach would be ok for clear personal attacks, in my opinion, and for things that are really bad you might not need to warn at all. But for things that are less clear-cut, the current consensus, as I understand it, is that a kind word of advice on the user's talk page would be better than a rigid system of warnings. Blocks should be a last resort if dialogue doesn't work. But anyway, with just a little bit more experience in admin areas I think you would be a fine admin candidate, and I hope you'll consider it in due course. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you said was immensely valuable. I hope I am not bothering you because I am about to discuss it a little further. (Social interaction is one of your areas of expertise after all.) You are the first person to have ever commented on my 3PAR mentality, but I am not sure if you've seen the key words: "using pure ad hominem as the sole argument". For example – Warning! Example ahead! – "he is an a**hole!" is a pure ad hominem but "are you blind?" is not pure. Also consider this: "The fineprint on section F, part 2 says it is based on Flounder! Don't you see it or are you pretending not to see it, punk?". Punk is a pure ad hominem but it is not the sole argument. So, none of these instances increase my 3PAR counter but I have seen them cause ANI discussions collapse around the poor soul who used them. So, how does this criteria meet policy mandates?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, that is a lot clearer with examples, and I fully agree with them. I suspect a lot of other users won't know what you mean about 3PAR unless you give examples, so be aware of that when you mention it in your future RfA. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for your assistance in semi-protecting my UserTalk page, and reverting edits relating to my denial of User:Colton Cosmic's unblock request. --TommyBoy (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Just ping me if more cluebat needs to be applied. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Module:TimeAgo doesn't work with wiki whose $wgLocaltimezone is not GMT

So, actually the problem is not about this module directly but is about {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} which is used along with Template:Time ago widely. {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} will return local time, but the module assumes that all inputs are in GMT. thwiki, for example, has timezone = GMT+7. When I saved a page which contains "{{Time ago|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}", instead of "0 second ago," I got "7 hours' time" instead.

Do you have any idea how to make "{{Time ago|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}" come out correctly while other inputs are still funtional? --Nullzero (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should have done it - can you test it and confirm whether it's working or not? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I had tried that before, but it doesn't work because "U" will regard the input as time in GMT although we force lang.formatDate to use local time. In other words, the third parameter has no effect if we use "U."
In order to avoid using "U", I change lang:formatDate("U" to lang:formatDate("Y m d h i s"), extract year, month, day, hour, minute, second, and combine everything to form time duration since January 1, 0, 00:00:00, but my attempt still can't solve this problem because every input, such as -1 minute, will be in different timezone from {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}. For example, with lang:formatDate(...) which is based on GMT+0, "{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}" is in GMT+7 while "-1 minute" is in GMT+0. With, lang:formatData(..., ..., true) which is based on GMT+7, "{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}" is in GMT+14 while "-1 minute" is in GMT+7. They are inconsistent. While {{Time ago|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}} is functional, {{Time ago|-1 second}} is not. On the other hand, while {{Time ago|-1 second}} is functional, {{Time ago|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}} is not.
You can examine the result from this link. Note that {{#time:..}} is equivalent to lang:formatDate(..., ...), and {{#timel:...}} is equivalent to lang:formatDate(..., ..., true). --Nullzero (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. This is a tricky one. The problem is that we don't know whether we will be passed a local timestamp or a GMT timestamp. For example, on thwiki, {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} is in GMT but {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} is in local time, so whichever way we choose to parse the time zones, the module will break for one or the other. Because we don't know what time zone to expect, this will need to be done by parameter. How about having a |localtime= parameter that interprets the time as local time if set, and GMT if not set? Or you could do it in individual templates by using {{#expr:{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} - {{#timel: O}} * 100}} as input. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. I will try. Thank you very much :) --Nullzero (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mailman

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Comedian

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Comedian. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

template:for loop

  1. 123
  2. 123

any idea why the first one works, but the second (currently) does not? Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

seems the issue is that '1' (string) is not the same as 1 (numeric) when it comes to args. could be fixed by a variableParam = tonumber(variableParam) or variableParam, but seems like there must be a better way? Frietjes (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
see module:ForLoop/sandbox for a hack. Frietjes (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes. I've refactored the module, switched it to use Module:Arguments, and put it up live. Let me know if you spot it doing anything strange. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems getting unacceptable

Hello! Please advise me what to do about things like this. I just can't stand it anymore and am considering to quit English WP alltogether. Specifcally I should note that you never miss an opportunity to highlight that someone is not a native speaker of English, which, frankly, borders on personal attack, where the never miss an opportunity part is so insulting and cruel and unfait that is makes me feel physically sick, and where the accusation of personal attack re: English is beyond my comprehension. It's been going on for a long time now, with that user. Would you please give me some constructive advice that might make me behave and/or feel better? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if this is a recurring thing with Surtsicna, or a recurring thing with you - or both - but he does have a point about your comment "I doubt that anyone with English as a first language would agree". It does pay to be tactful when talking about grammar in situations like that. If you have evidence that this is a recurring problem, and you have already tried talking to Surtsicna on his talk page about it, then you could try taking it to WP:ANI. But I suspect it might be better to just think twice before you imply that other editors have inferior English skills. There are other ways to resolve issues like this that have a lot less risk of causing drama. Hope this helps. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been going on for a while with SergeWoodzing and many users. Simply put, nobody appreciates his condescending lectures, which is hardly surprising. See, for example, User talk:Cotillards#Created grammar problem, where he threatened to stalk a user if she did not change her "near-native English" template, and then to block her (as if he could) when she told him off. I see he has posted the same message on talk pages of four other administrators (Magioladitis, John Vandenberg, JamesBWatson, and TransporterMan), but never bothered to ping me, which is rather dishonest. Anyway, as I told Cotillards, the last time he tried to have someone (me) blocked at ANI, the administrators told him to grow up and to stop acting immature. That apparently achieved nothing. Surtsicna (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Surtsicna, for calling my attention to the fact that SergeWoodzing has posted multiple copies of this message. Doing so without informing the recipients can be unhelpful: in such cases I have known it to happen that several people put time and effort into trying to provide help, not knowing that they are unnecessarily duplicating what others have said. I have written a fairly long answer on my talk page, which may or may not be helpful to SergeWoodzing. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know it this is relevant, but I saw this by accident and I cannot help but react: SergeWoodzing has complained about my English as well, and though to some degree justified, he did so in a less cordial way, and even another user saw his act as a way to have me blocked: [[2]]. I thought I should ad this if it could be of any help. Personally, I feel rather uncomfortable complaining about other users, but I myself has since long preferred to avoid SergeWoodzing because of my experience of his behavior (in much higher degree in Swedish language Wikipedia, though), and his own difficulty to understand how destructive it could be. On that occasion, he deleted my reply to him on his page. That being said, I always feel uncomfortable complaining about another user this way, but it is very hard to make SergeWoodzing to understand that he could be at fault. I nonetheless think that it would actually be good for himself and his future at Wikipedia to realize this, so if my example on my page could be of any help, you may link to it, because it seems that this is a reoccurring problem. If he could see that his behavior is actually a problem to himself, then it could actually be of help to him too. Otherwise, I prefer to stay away from this discussion. I wish you luck in dealing with it! --Aciram (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I'm not an administrator, Surtsicna, though I'm honored by being included in the same list with those you mentioned above, as well as my friend, Mr. Stradivarius, here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I only checked two or three users and assumed that you too are an administrator, probably because you are a quite reputable editor. I am glad I did not cause a misunderstanding :) Surtsicna (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template editor comment

Thanks for that, the part about template sandboxes slipped my mind. :o Acalamari 10:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Actually, I edit conflicted with you, and just removed all the "not done" stuff from the start of my comment when I saw the edit conflict window. So you shouldn't read anything too deep into what I said. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Well, regardless, I still appreciate your note! :) Acalamari 10:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

Module:Documentation

Hi the view, edit ,history and purge buttons are not showing please could you fix the issue in Module:Documentation 86.135.166.133 (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr._Stradivarius&oldid=591681575"