User talk:GreenC/2017: Difference between revisions
Tag: |
→You're welcome: new section |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
</div> |
</div> |
||
<!-- Message sent by User:EGalvez (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Engagement_Insights/MassMessages/Lists/2016/49-VAEEN&oldid=16205389 --> |
<!-- Message sent by User:EGalvez (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Engagement_Insights/MassMessages/Lists/2016/49-VAEEN&oldid=16205389 --> |
||
== You're welcome == |
|||
Re: your compliments on the Hlj user page, you're welcome. Hal |
Revision as of 16:45, 15 January 2017
Happy happy!
Why?
[1] It would help to provide edit summaries when you're adding a bunch of cite templates to the ignore list so suddenly.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 13:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well I had a late night :) But we had just had a discussion on phab, there are edits where these templates caused problems, but in retrospect it may not be the template fault but something else. What do you think?
-- GreenC 15:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm asking why you'd put them in the ignore list and note the cite list.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah that's ok I'm probably misunderstanding how it works. The templates
{{cite court}}
and{{cite act}}
don't support|archiveurl=
/|archivedate=
. Same with{{Internet}}
and{{Website}}
. Since they were generating errors I thought it made sense to disable them. What kind of templates should go in the cite list? -- GreenC 17:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)- Generally templates that support the url, accessdate, archivedate, and archiveurl parameters. v1.3 will be disabling the converting and tagging of URLs that are within a template, while still allowing them to be directly replaced with an archive.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Excellent. If possible I'd like to leave a comment in the .js to that effect, so the cfg is self-documenting - would that be possible? JavaScript comments. I don't want to break the parser though if it doesn't expect comments. -- GreenC 18:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think comments work for the PHP JSON Decoder. When a comment was added by another admin, it broke the bot.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh forgot. How about a top-level entry called "documentation:" before "link scan:" with a value of "Documentation for this page at User:InternetArchiveBot/Dead-links.js/doc" -- GreenC 19:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I doubt the page would take it since it's told to only accept JSON.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's JSON. Might need to escape some characters not sure. Or if you mean the /doc path it can reside anywhere. -- GreenC 19:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I doubt the page would take it since it's told to only accept JSON.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh forgot. How about a top-level entry called "documentation:" before "link scan:" with a value of "Documentation for this page at User:InternetArchiveBot/Dead-links.js/doc" -- GreenC 19:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think comments work for the PHP JSON Decoder. When a comment was added by another admin, it broke the bot.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Excellent. If possible I'd like to leave a comment in the .js to that effect, so the cfg is self-documenting - would that be possible? JavaScript comments. I don't want to break the parser though if it doesn't expect comments. -- GreenC 18:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Generally templates that support the url, accessdate, archivedate, and archiveurl parameters. v1.3 will be disabling the converting and tagging of URLs that are within a template, while still allowing them to be directly replaced with an archive.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah that's ok I'm probably misunderstanding how it works. The templates
RfA
Have you ever considered running for adminship? Pinging User:Ritchie333.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is the same Green Cardamom that's been running that Green C bot I've noticed around the place .... mmm, will have to see how much havoc (if any) that's caused. Firstly, read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates then User:Kudpung/RfA criteria (which is the basic criteria everyone should start off with, though by no means the only one) thoroughly. When you've done that and understand everything in it, pop back and I'll see if you are suitable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Ritchie333, thanks for the offer, I'm going to pass for right now, but will keep it in mind for the future. I probably would do alright no skeletons but no need for access to the toolset at that moment. One day I'd like to create a new tool for admins that functions as a rap sheep for problematic users, searching out and displaying on a single page points of trouble (eg. history of username changes, intersections of those names in SPI, etc..) .. automating some of the techniques admins currently do manually to research editors, but that's down the road, right now doing a lot of work with fixing link rot eg. havoc :) -- GreenC 14:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, that is the wrong answer, an RfA will now be forced on you as punishment. :p—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Ritchie333, thanks for the offer, I'm going to pass for right now, but will keep it in mind for the future. I probably would do alright no skeletons but no need for access to the toolset at that moment. One day I'd like to create a new tool for admins that functions as a rap sheep for problematic users, searching out and displaying on a single page points of trouble (eg. history of username changes, intersections of those names in SPI, etc..) .. automating some of the techniques admins currently do manually to research editors, but that's down the road, right now doing a lot of work with fixing link rot eg. havoc :) -- GreenC 14:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome
Re: your compliments on the Hlj user page, you're welcome. Hal
- ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
- ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.