User talk:Izkala: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:09, 14 August 2015

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Blank template generator

I wonder whether it might be possible to have something like {{Parameter names example}}, but that produces a blank template, like that seen in Template:Infobox halftime show/doc#Code? No worries if it doesn't add the , and please say if you're too busy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Parameters}} does just that; use it with {{subst:#tag:pre|{{subst:Parameters|code|base={{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}}}|style=overflow: auto;}}. Alakzi (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's going to save me a lot of tedious work. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the other options as well, and let me know if you've got any ideas for improvement. Alakzi (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of feature requests, which others may find useful. As we standardise some template names, you could add an option to include definitions and pro forma text, like  or, say for |native_name=, name in local language. If more than one, separate using {{tl|Plain list}}; and you could add a version which outputs TemplateData markup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added definitions to the code output; they can be disabled with |definitions=no. Feel free to expand the list of definitions at the top of Module:Parameters. TemplateData can be generated using VE: click on "Manage TemplateData" in the edit window, then "Add ... suggested parameters". Alakzi (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy: I've now added the same functionality to dlist. Alakzi (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox college coach

Alakzi, I seem you've made some coding updates to Template:Infobox college coach. Is there a plan to have a bot update the uses of the now-depreciated fields to the new fields or will this have to be done manually? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how will the new field scheme handle individuals who played or coaches multiple sports, e.g. Hugo Bezdek? Jweiss11 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Alakzi (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: Well, I've just written a module for this purpose; please see Module:Infobox college coach/convert. If it doesn't break down spectacularly after 100 or so manual replacements, I'll do the rest (periodically) with AWB. Cheers. Alakzi (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also paging BU Rob13, who first reported the issue. Alakzi (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alakzi: I'd just assume leave the old code and move on to new problems, but I suppose it's good to truly eradicate it's use not only by striking it from documentation, but by also removing the temptation for cut and pasting old examples. If you fancy more coding exercises, I can suggest some other templates near and dear to me with deprecated params.—Bagumba (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, though I might not be able to get to them immediately. Alakzi (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1 and Bagumba: Would it be possible to get a few people together to test my conversion script on a limited number of articles before site-wide deployment? What they'd need to do is replace "{{Infobox college coach" with "{{subst:#invoke:Infobox college coach/convert|main", press "Save", and report their findings back to yours truly. Alakzi (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably look at this over the weekend, but if either Jweiss11 or Bagumba has the time now, more power to them. Please note that Jweiss is the expert on the formatting of this particular infobox, and probably should be the final arbiter of whether the conversion script is functioning adequately. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there existing test cases that we can look at? It might be more effective to find different coaches that have formats that haven't been verified yet. Also, does the script cover regenerating params that are not in documentation, but might have been handled in the template (or have all those been converted and/or deprecated)?—Bagumba (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Side-by-side test cases are not possible, given that the module needs to be substituted to work. But you could look at all of my latest edits with the following edit summary: "Split teams/years using Module:Infobox college coach/convert". Yes, the point of this exercise is to uncover the edge cases. If there's a more reliable and less time-consuming way to do that, then by all means.

The script handles all parameters in the template, with the exception of the new career parameters it's meant to convert to. Alakzi (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we can have the base testcases, without the "subst" side, that can be compiled for reference? Once the testing is done, I'd suggest coverting a small set of high traffic pages (10?), land them sit live for a few days, and see if there are complaints before proceeding full scale.—Bagumba (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've set up some test cases here, which are - actually - rendered, to my surprise. Alakzi (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to document how "player_sport" and "coach_sport" works. I get it, but it'll be a challenge explaining it in template data without a full blown example for less techie editors.—Bagumba (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an attempt to explain it here. Alakzi (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those types of entries won't work with TemplateData. See this discussion. Parameter name needs to match verbatim, so can't have generic entries like "player_sport1..20". Not sure if player_sport1_team1, player_sport1_team2, ... player_sport1_teamN, player_sport2_team1, player_sport2_teamN, ... player_sportN_teamM would be any easier to use/explain?—Bagumba (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the description's fairly comprehensible, I'll try to jam it in the TemplateData. Alakzi (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion seems to choke if there are trailing spaces for e.g. . At least there is an error msg.—Bagumba (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch - should be fixed. Alakzi (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reached my QA quota for the day :-)—Bagumba (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

;-) Alakzi (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11, Bagumba, and Dirtlawyer1: Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Abotzi. Alakzi (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox gridiron football person

One option is to pass this edit by another template editor, and have them either keep it or revert it. Puts an end to the edit war at least.—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, if a piece of code is removed with no consequences whatsoever for the template, then by definition this code is unnecessary and removing it is actually good practice. That Alakzi's edit was reverted with edit-summary "stop making idle edits" is actually an admission that the removal of the code had no effect in the rendering of the template. Otherwise Alakzi's edit would have been described as harmful. So in a bizarre way the reverting editor paid a compliment to Alakzi while restoring the redundant code. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do comments count as code :-)—Bagumba (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Perhaps it was a coded message. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if edit warring or wasting other editors' time is worse. Either way, after a good night's sleep, I find myself struggling to care; I should've probably never counter-reverted, though I do maintain that reverting an edit the reverter can't find fault with is extremely poor form. Alakzi (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blues dance

Blues dance is one of the articles with an infobox revert/debate leading to the infoboxes arbcase. A discussion is ongoing now. I see two problems, one that the article is not precise about placement of the topic, a family of dances, in time and location, the other that {{infobox dance}} offers too limited parameters, comparing with {{infobox music genre}} which is used for Tango, - which reminds me of the hymn vs. musical composition discussion where I had the pleasure to meet you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why {{Infobox dance}} can't be expanded. Alakzi (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a dance person, - should I go to a project, the template talk or an editor such as FourViolas? I also have other things to do, promised myself a GA nom today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could start a discussion on the template talk page and leave a note on WT:DANCE. Alakzi (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt:/Alakzi I've made a start on expanding it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Encouragement

I suggested an infobox for this song for which I made a DYK. First encounter with {{infobox song}} and not happy. Text allows only one album, + no para for a book publication, + I would like to picture the person, no cover, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could use {{Infobox musical composition}}? Alakzi (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will think about it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Request by DeDiep

Purely FYI in the event you may have missed it. Ignore this otherwise. As is their prerogative per WP:NOBAN (don't ask me why that is the shortcut name), DePiep has requested that you no longer edit on their talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it and hence refrained from commenting. It's WP:NOBAN because it used to be that you couldn't ban people from your talk page. Alakzi (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it should be CANBAN. Whatever.—Bagumba (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, thanks for notifying me. Alakzi (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK school

Hello. I just noticed that your 30 July 2015 edit to Template:Infobox UK school removed the coordinates functionality (longitude, latitude, etc.) from the template. This affects many UK schools. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know how that happened. Terribly sorry. Alakzi (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version displayed the coordinates in the title, but did not also display them in the infobox. Kanguole 21:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an issue? It is common for the coordinates to be shown in the infobox. Alakzi (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been an issue in the past. Some of us think the repetition is clutter. Kanguole 22:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both locations are where some readers expect to see them, - that is not clutter but service. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Interstellar probe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Interstellar probe. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upright

I tried, in Schauet doch und sehet, ob irgend ein Schmerz sei, BWV 46#1, to use "upright=1.4" instead of a fixed size for the second image, but then see nothing. ? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've used an asterisk instead of an equals sign. Alakzi (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean. The generated thumbnail is blank. That is weird. Alakzi (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked on WP:VPT. Alakzi (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, seen, and added the fixed, - all three you gave there look blank to me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking categories

Quick question about tracking categories. I recently created Category:Infobox NFL player articles with small text to track the accessibility issue described here. Do I need to do anything special to populate the category beyond inserting the appropriate markup here: [1]? ~ Rob^Talk 06:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that should be all. Though I'm curious as to why the category lists more articles than a page-wide search. Alakzi (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is odd. Does anything look weird in the way I generated the category? I copied and adapted from the code used by another editor at Template:Infobox CFL player, but that one seemed to work without error. Are redirects such as Template:Infobox NFLactive not picked up in the page-wide search, possibly? ~ Rob^Talk 09:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are; that was the first thing I checked. :-) See Curly Lambeau, for instance. Alakzi (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I thought I had a bright idea. There's a first time for everything, but I guess this isn't one of those, heh. While I'm here, could you explain the change of plain from false to true in [2]? I'm trying to learn template stuff slowly but surely so I can help out more with template accessibility, which is quickly becoming one of my areas of interest. You've been widely cited as an expert on template stuff, but feel free to let me know if you'd rather not field the occasional question. ~ Rob^Talk 09:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, |plain= controls whether the pattern should be interpreted as a regex and is more resource-intensive; as we're performing a literal comparison, it is not necessary. In hindsight, we should probably also be checking for capitalised tags, i.e. .... I don't know if I'm an expert, but I'm always happy to help. Alakzi (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template/infobox center justification

I don't know who did it or why they did but the changes to the infobox base coding that changed the center justification of subheaders within infobox templates has screwed up literally hundreds of infoboxes that are transcluded into thousands of articles. It's this kind of callous "I don't give a flip about the practical consequences" attitude that really angers article and content editors, and leads to distrust and resistance to a whole host of otherwise well-intended and potentially beneficial initiatives. I'd like to know what individual template editor was responsible so I may inquire of him or her directly when that individual plans to fix all of the individual templates he has materially altered -- because clearly his edits have put that burden on the maintainers of articles, who by and large have no clue how to fix the problems created. (I know you have been graciously fixing these problems piecemeal, as other editors have requested your help.) Please let me know, so I'm not just spitting in the wind. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was Edokter who made the change with Special:Diff/668317639. The relevant discussion can be found here. Alakzi (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why the coding modification was necessary or desirable? Why was a global coding solution not possible or practical? In any event, I think it would be an excellent idea to keep a list of all templates that still need to be fixed on the linked talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was to force IE (versions 9 and earlier), which behaves unlike any other browser, to left-justify the labels - and the labels only. Instead, Edokter left-justified all the cells in the table indiscriminately. We'd need to figure out how to generate such a list. Personally, I fix them immediately when I find them. Alakzi (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me out -- I'm trying to understand. Why was it necessary to left justify all cells/text indiscriminately? What was the IEv9 rendering error that demanded this solution? As for the suggested list, I think it should be posted on the Common.CSS talk page, and you should not be solely responsible for the individual fixes -- in the absence of some sort of detection system and/or tracking category, I suspect we're going to be finding and fixing these rendering errors for years. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly wasn't necessary. Internet Explorer (< 10) would centre the row labels, so instead of...

... you'd get ...

... in {{Infobox3cols}}, which did not apply an inline style. What was necessary was to target the row labels only. Alakzi (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Television series overview template move

There was not anything close to consensus, so why did you move it? It was clearly a contentious move since it had been done and undone already. I'm asking you to reconsider your close before I file a move review. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be reconsidering it. Per WP:CON#Determining consensus, I have judged the arguments in opposition to have been nothing short of bogus. Alakzi (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move review request can be found here: Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2015_August#Template:Televison series overview. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS - No hard feelings over this. Just disagree with the close and thought it could use review. Nothing personal. Hope this doesn't affect our work on WP:WCAG or anything. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings from me either. Alakzi (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: I am in total agreeance with you, and hence have restored the discussion and templates to how they were. Given the fact that it was a non-admin closure, and that "the arguments in opposition to have been nothing short of bogus" is bogus within itself. Thi has already been contested previously - add why you think the arguments are bogus to the discussion. Alex|The|Whovian 23:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've elaborated on my closure here. Alakzi (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

Please take care. Regardless of right or wrong, you will only get yourself blocked if you get involved in another edit war. It's not worth it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

@Alakzi, AlexTheWhovian, AussieLegend, and Pigsonthewing: This has got to be the dumbest edit war I have ever seen: the four of you are fighting over the name of an obscure template that already has a redirect of the same name, and then you are deleting templated warnings from each other's user talk page -- seriously? When all four of you are blocked, expect to serve the block for the duration because I expect you will have a hard time finding a sympathetic administrator to unblock you. Just stop it. All of you. Please. [Posted contemporaneously to all four user talk pages.] Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're not fighting over the name; we're "fighting" over Alex's bullying and Aussie's aiding of his bullying. I hope this clears it up. Alakzi (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it any less WP:LAME to edit war on warning templates. That is not directed only at you, by any means. ~ Rob^Talk 14:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is unacceptable for a third party to edit war on a user talk page. Alakzi (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor accessibility issue (?)

Hey. Can you take a look at the infoboxes of these two swimmer articles: Elizabeth Simmonds and Shannon Vreeland? In particular, the "club" field of Simmonds, and "college_team" field of Vreeland . . . both use a hard break ( ) code to separate and add a second club or college team to the respective fields. Does the hard break present a real access issue for screen readers, etc. If so, what is the best way to code this? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it does; you should be using {{Unbulleted list}} or {{Plainlist}} (same output, different syntax). I've converted Elizabeth Simmonds for reference. Alakzi (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just realized that Vreeland was the wrong example (I was thinking of Amanda Weir), but your solution for Simmonds obviously works for either case. This is what I was looking for. These double entries are not that common, so I did not want to complicate the template with added fields (e.g., "college_team2", etc.) if it could be avoided. It's even messier making such changes, of course, because this template is a wrap of Infobox sportsperson. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

closetfd.js

How are you finding User:Doug/closetfd.js? Any tips? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't do anything except insert the top and bottom coversheet templates and generate an edit summary; it's honestly not very useful. I could look into porting some of the closeafd functionality. Alakzi (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would be really nice to have. Let me know if you do it. — Earwig ^talk 02:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfA discussions

Yes, I read it before you deleted it. There was abslutely nothing offensive in my comment and I'm not going to be bullied or intimidated by you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "I think it would be helpful to keep [the page] on track", insinuating that Opabinia had been somehow derailing the conversation, which I thought was inappropriate. You can take my advice, or leave it; there's no bullying or intimidation. Why is "you" in italics? What about me? Alakzi (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Is there some aspect of me you'd like to discuss, or are you quite content with drive-by mud-slinging? Alakzi (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The drive-by mud slinging was the comment you posted and removed in the knowledge that I would see it.It was an insult and a disingenous method of making it. End of story. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To anybody who happens to see this, I have since apologised to Kudpung. Alakzi (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Olympic Games

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Olympic Games. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked

Ripley suggested nuking the entire site from orbit. Eep! FYI. [3] Doc talk 06:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my nihilist tendencies have begun to surface. Alakzi (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert at AN

Please do not remove other users's comments on a flimsy pretext. User Rob self-identifies as a student, and debating for debate's sake is a common exercise among students. Here at Wikipedia debate is used for a variety of purposes, but should not be done just as an exercise. It becomes disruptive to open the 16th discussion of the same point. My comment has nothing to do with the age of the user, for all I know, he may study for a PhD and be in his late 40s. Kraxler (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and debating for debate's sake is a common exercise among students Even if that were true, I see no indication that it applies to Rob; please avoid making sweeping generalisations. Rob's proposal appears to be genuine, and your comment completely uncalled for. Alakzi (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the comment and its implication that I'm not actually here to build an encyclopedia were somewhat disheartening, I assume it was made with the best of intentions. It's worth noting that WP:NPA specifically disallows ad hominem arguments based on affiliations. I always welcome constructive criticism of my contributions, as they can only improve my understanding of policies and guidelines with which I may not be familiar, but comments about me as a person do not serve that purpose. ~ Rob^Talk 03:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usonians

We do too have direct democracy! Mostly it involves white people complaining about parking. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Well, we've all got to start from somewhere, I suppose. Alakzi (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bell ringing: Usonia Homes, can't believe they have no images (I have some but on paper), and all three house articles shorter than the monster of a template (should be collapsed, at least). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Maybe we could split the navbox into several smaller ones? Or we could use {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} to collapse the sections. Alakzi (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of white space because of the image. Could that go somewhere else, like in the first list only? - Btw, I think I managed to add another column with optional header to {{classical movement row}}, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images in navboxes don't really serve any useful purpose. It does appear to be working - well done. ;-) Alakzi (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I works when shown. The column appears always in the header, specified or not. Help? Seems to have to do with the optional column header which I planned to also show basso continuo or whatever. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Alakzi (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFB game box start

Hey, A. Can you add a "Source" parameter to this template, following the existing parameters? Clearly needs a field where a link to the source data for the game summary can be found. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please update the documentation. Alakzi (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your WP space moves without discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Choor monster (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar For You

		The Accessibility Barnstar
		For your substantial and consistent work in making Wikipedia more accessible. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, EvergreenFir. Alakzi (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Let the tiger show its stripes

Question: I created Wikipedia:Let the tiger show its stripes based off the same principles as WP:ROPE. Do you think this solves the concerns without the negativity that ROPE had? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: Though I absolutely appreciate your going into all of that effort, Ricky, I believe that it still is unduly negative; "to show one's stripes" is a more idiomatic alternative to "to give one rope", but the implication remains the same. We should unblock in the genuine belief of reformation or understanding. We should not unblock simply to build a stronger case for blocking further down the line. If we'd rather keep some of the wit of the original title, perhaps we could pursue GregKaye's suggestion of the "last pub before the border" (or somesuch), which, albeit patronising, does not suggest that the blocked editor is beyond redemption. Alakzi (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support unblocking to build a stronger case. That's not the point. Feel free to take a whack at it as I first wanted to remove the suicide connotations some people had. I'll have to rewrite it in the morning but I think it's better to argue for shorter blocks with an explanation and if the conduct continues, then to bring a hammer down. For example, I was dealing with User:Buzzbuzzwili who had a habit of adding in political positions to parties and I started with a 24-hour block and a detailed explanation. Once the block expired, and the conduct continued, it went to indefinite. I've similarly unblocked based on a good-faith (but somewhat pessimistic and thus doubtful) belief that the user had reformed and been shown to be wrong almost immediately. In that sense perhaps it needs more of a "zebras aren't tigers" kind of thing but it may just be you disagree with the essay and perhaps you should create something different, more of a "Good faith is most needed to protect the editors we hate" (sort of a when free speech is most needed idea). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - that's not the point, but it is what is implied by the title. It can't be very difficult to choose one which doesn't cause undue offence because of the connotations it has in everyday English. We need to give off the impression of good faith (even if we're deep down to assume the worst) to encourage the blocked editor to return to productive editing. The only admin who blocked me, said to me, and I quote, "I'm going to give you some rope". Another admin referenced WP:ROPE in discussing my block with the blocking admin on their talk page. (And this seems to be quite typical behaviour of admins.) I don't understand how I could possibly not feel offended. It is essentially the stigmatisation of the editor. Alakzi (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the editor has already been blocked (which is a premise in the situation) then there's already going to be some assumptions about the editor. Your issue isn't the wording the essay so much as you disagree with it and I think if you expressed it that way, then it wouldn't be so problematic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Give 'em enough rope. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. There's not ever a good time for that. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[[4]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Since the filer of the SPI against me did not think to inform me, I'm taking the liberty to notify myself that I'm under investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alakzi. Alakzi (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike AN, AN/I and AN3, there is no requirement that the subject of an SPI be notified. BMK (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it would have been courteous to do so. Alakzi (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notification that I dedicated my (done) work on spirit and soul become confused to you before going to bed. Thank you for staying, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Gerda as usual :) I'm sorry you got caught up in this particular form of community dysfunction. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the dysfunction is not over. It is apparently "inconclusive" whether we're sockpuppets. Fuck that shit. Alakzi (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your post. I probably shouldn't be sticking my nose in when I'm about to disappear but it's really not worth it. All that 'result' is is a technical report and the SPI page is 'evidence' enough of, well, the quality of the evidence involved. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter; it's fodder for my critics. Why did the CU not even bother to communicate with about whatever it was that threw him off? Is it that we're lesser people? Alakzi (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help...

...at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 23#Category:Guinea-Bissauan people. I've messed around with AWB, but couldn't figure out an easy way to that without having to cycle through all of the sub-cats. Would you mind explaining the process to me for future reference? I appreciate it, -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: There might be an easy way to do it with AWB, but I simply copied the output of [5] in my editor. Alakzi (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that appears to have been my last good deed here. Good luck to you, Tavix. Alakzi (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Indefinitely

Even if I didn't think you were trolling and sockpuppeting, this really ended up sealing the deal for me. Guidelines for appealing the block can be found at WP:GAB. NW (Talk) 22:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the issue with that, exactly? Never have I said that looking into my IP is equivalent to being raped; what an obtuse assertion. Alakzi (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For my and your delectation, do actually run a CU on the two accounts. You've just blocked another editor for no reason. Not that I expect you to unblock him even after it's proven that you were wrong; that wouldn't be very administrator-like of you. Alakzi (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am perfectly comfortable with another administrator reversing this block if they feel the behavioral evidence isn't strong enough. But I have no desire to engage with this further. Unblock request instructions are available in the link above. NW (Talk) 22:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My dangerous dreams of amnesty --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've no interest in begging for an unblock. If somebody else wishes to challenge your authority, they may do so. Alakzi (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, you have an ... interesting ... point of view. Asking to be unblocked -- assuming that you believe that you've been blocked unjustly -- is "begging". BMK (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please go grave-dance someplace else. Cheers. Alakzi (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprisingly we disagree about word usage again - I wouldn't characterize it in any way as "grave dancing"; but of course I will honor your request not to post here again. Have a good one. BMK (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to thank you, but it appears you can't do that when you're blocked. Alakzi (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this is the end. For all of our disagreements, I admit, without hesitation, that you have done some good work. I wish you well in your future endeavors. Have a good one. --ceradon (talk • edits) 22:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time out. I suspect the "sock" thing is going to go away. Everything else can be worked out if people would chill a little bit. Have a little patience and see what happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alakzi, you still around? I'm going to remove the indef block for sock/meatpuppetry - even if you aren't here - but if you haven't gone offline I'd like to talk to you a bit first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm still here. Alakzi (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to undo the indef block, I think it's pretty clear there's no socking going on. I'd really prefer to just undo it, rather than reduce to some "standard" 24-48 hour block for using bad words and being rude and stuff. But at the same time, you seem pretty far over the top, and I'm hoping you'd agree to dial it back a notch. If I don't at least try to attempt to address that too, they're going to kick me out of the clubhouse. I do know it's not all 1 sided, and I don't want to get into a comparative who said something worse discussion. Could you just... I don't know, chill a little? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest bringing it up at ANI. I don't think we need warring admins over this block here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's warring, I've talked with NW. And ANI sucks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll shut up then. It wasn't clear that your unblock was following a discussion. And yes ANI sucks but it's likely to be a firestorm either way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to drive 30 minutes before I can eat dinner, and I'm hungry now, so I'm just going to go ahead and unblock completely, without waiting to hear from you. How's that for an unblock rationale? But a shorter block just for being kind of angry and out of control probably would have stuck, and I hope you'll back off and disengage from people who piss you off. Or things will blow up again and I'll look like a dupe and you'll be miserable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's not really much I can say to that. I'll try to simply walk away from these situations in the future. Thank you for unblocking. Alakzi (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearWarfare: This is, of course, an absolutely - outrageously - unwarranted indef. Please reverse it ASAP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace deletions

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I request that the following pages under my account be deleted. Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 228: / Line 228: @@
 ::::: Clearly, the dysfunction is not over. It is apparently "inconclusive" whether we're sockpuppets. Fuck that shit. [[User:Alakzi|Alakzi]] ([[User talk:Alakzi#top|talk]]) 08:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 ::::::I just saw your post. I probably shouldn't be sticking my nose in when I'm about to disappear but it's really not worth it. All that 'result' is is a technical report and the SPI page is 'evidence' enough of, well, the quality of the evidence involved. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 08:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
+::::::: It does matter; it's fodder for my critics. Why did the CU not even bother to communicate with about whatever it was that threw him off? Is it that we're lesser people? [[User:Alakzi|Alakzi]] ([[User talk:Alakzi#top|talk]]) 09:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 == Thank you for your help... ==