User talk:Tom.Reding
Click here to start a new conversation. Thank you!
 | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Barnstar
A barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
Thank you! :) ~ Tom.Reding & his 200-some-odd lines of regex (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 02:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
There's nothing quite like cleaning up a good, 'ol-fashioned clusterfuck. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction :) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 04:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Barnstar awarded
A barnstar for you!
Another barnstar for you!
Editor of the Week
User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: {{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 20:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The AWB Barnster
A barnstar for you!
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Congrats on joining the million edit club!
A barnstar for you!
A Dobos torte for you!
You have used your gifts well, Padawan
7&6=thirteen, thank you :) And I really should take the test, but I can't be bothered while editing...perhaps that is or should be one of the questions?? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC) A barnstar for your efforts
A barnstar for you!
I see we both have OCD. I had no choice but to give you this barnstar. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
A Barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
For improving Navseasoncats
|
.jpg)
Authority control + Vital articles?
Noticed you're a driving force for authority control additions. Don't know if you follow a specific pattern, but thinking it'd be nice to focus on Wikipedia:Vital articles lacking this, since these are, after all, vital. FYI, Vital has five levels, starting at the ten most vital, then top 100, top 1000, top 10k, and top 50k. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:DoneU for all VAs I could find soon after your message. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Ones still not having it (eg Dream yoga) would be ones which no such authorities, then? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Hyperbolick: yes, for the most part, or they were vital'd after my compilation. I decided to skip pages with Microsoft Academic as the only ID (100~150 pages, perhaps), as that service is being discontinued at the end of this year. You can request more IDs @ Template talk:Authority control. There are also some non-Latin titles I need to check too, but only a dozen or so. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Ones still not having it (eg Dream yoga) would be ones which no such authorities, then? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Page broken
Just want to let you know that your edit broke the page styling. I fixed it but I suggest you to preview the page after adding authority control. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 06:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Northern Moonlight: bug report filed. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Only 1 preexisting similar(ish) case found in my 25k most recent edits. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Authority Control edits moving Commonscat templates to odd places in articles
A recent round of Authority Control edits which you made caused an unexpected problem. On articles such as Unterbözberg, Mettembert and Suscévaz it moved the Commons Category template above the References section and stuck it under the header of the text section above the References section. Of the 4 articles I checked, this happened 3 times.Tobyc75 (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Tobyc75: that's where it should be, per Template:Commons category/doc#Location. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, these should be at the top of the last section; preferably, this is the External links section, but if this is missing it may be at the top of the See Also or the References section. It should not be moved at the top of the last "text" section, which is what you are doing here. See MOS:LAYOUTEL. Fram (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Since the above pages have references with columns, and the {{Commons category}} don't contain
|position=left, according to the red X's, I should move commons up. The text immediately below that says don't move commons up. I think this wording can be improved. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Since the above pages have references with columns, and the {{Commons category}} don't contain
- Except that it's not putting it under External links or something like that. It's inserting it into what ever section is above, regardless of what that section is. This means you have a random commons cat template in the middle of text.Tobyc75 (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Tobyc75: when I was writing my code, I think I was going off of Template:Commons/doc#Location (based on the name, I figured was the 'root' template, though I never compared transclusions counts), which had the much stricter instruction of "
Do not place this template in a section containing columns.", meaning my code was correct. However, I assumed Template:Commons category/doc#Location was the same, but it is (was) not, and it doesn't make sense for them to be different. Since {{Commons category}} is currently transcluded on 800k pages, 12.5x more than {{Commons}}, it becomes to de facto consensus, so I've updated Template:Commons/doc#Location to reflect that. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Tobyc75: when I was writing my code, I think I was going off of Template:Commons/doc#Location (based on the name, I figured was the 'root' template, though I never compared transclusions counts), which had the much stricter instruction of "
- Actually, these should be at the top of the last section; preferably, this is the External links section, but if this is missing it may be at the top of the See Also or the References section. It should not be moved at the top of the last "text" section, which is what you are doing here. See MOS:LAYOUTEL. Fram (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Newark NJ fire dept Wikipedia page
He's back again, this time from a Miami ip address. He just pounced on the Newark NJ fire dept Wikipedia page Doriden (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Srshanta (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Srshanta: please read Help:Your first article & ask any questions at the WP:Teahouse. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
can you create his Wikipedia. I will provide you his all information and news source and Google knowledge panel source Srshanta (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
"en.wikipedia.org" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect En.wikipedia.org. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 24#en.wikipedia.org until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Authority control on redirects
Hi! Curious about this edit. How does it help the reader learn more about Cuthbertson as they'll just end up on the business school's page. Not disagreeing, just a little confused. Thanks for any insight. Star Mississippi 13:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi: when redirected, there is a link to the redirecting page. If the reader clicks on that page, they will see the additional links, which are different from the target. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! Makes sense. Is there somewhere that explains it that could be linked for those of us less familiar with authority control & wikidata? Star Mississippi 13:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi: WP:Authority control comes to mind. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! Makes sense. Is there somewhere that explains it that could be linked for those of us less familiar with authority control & wikidata? Star Mississippi 13:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
If you do not desist from using automated editing to add a template specifically designed to direct people off-wiki to redirect pages, the next stop for me is ANI. There appears to be no consensus for such a pointless task nor bot approval for it. To clarify your response above - you only see the redirect link back to the redirect if you click on the redirect through the on-wiki search rather than the bigger more prominent article link in the search results to the left of it. In all other situations you will not see or land on the redirect page, and the idea that someone will click on a redirect link (which most of the time they wont see) then click through a template just to find a musicbrains ID is utterly idiotic. Stop now, or the next step is I ask for you to be forcibly stopped. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Only in death: please read WP:Authority control#Non-1:1 and non-exact matches. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Unless that's a link to a bot request where you specifically lay out that you are adding a template to redirects, I am uninterested. Stop now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Only in death: why? If you don't like it, please exhibit consensus and change WP:Authority control. WP:ANI is a last resort, of course. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- While I don't want to get in the middle of this, I would like to make a helpful suggestion. There are a large number (over 70,000) redirects tagged as {{R with possibilities}}, indicating that an editor believes that a separate article can be written on the topic of that redirect. To the extent that redirects are being tagged, I think it would be helpful to focus on these first, as these are the ones for which authority control information is likely to be most useful. I would also think, however, that it would generally be best to add the template to live articles before adding it to redirects. I see no problem with having the template on a redirect page. We tag and categorize redirects with redirect templates all the time. BD2412 T 19:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Only in death: why? If you don't like it, please exhibit consensus and change WP:Authority control. WP:ANI is a last resort, of course. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Unless that's a link to a bot request where you specifically lay out that you are adding a template to redirects, I am uninterested. Stop now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Since you have declined to stop your unapproved mass-editing, and reverted the challanges I have made. This is now at ANI. Consider yourself notified. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Administrator note: Regardless of whether the template really allows these edits or not, there is a distinct possibility that this kind of editing violates the WP:MEATBOT policy and requires approval by WP:BAG. I strongly suggest you desist from making further edits until the discussion currently held at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Tom.Reding operating an unapproved WP:MEATBOT to perform useless tasks. has finished. Otherwise, you risk being blocked to force you to stop which is not in anyone's interest really. After all, there is no pressing need for adding this template en masse, so you can just wait for consensus to develop before making further edits. Regards SoWhy 11:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: fair enough, mostly. Re: WP:MEATBOT: I'm approving every edit, and not "
sacrific[ing] quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity
". I'll point out that I'm also correcting page layout per WP:REDIRECT & Template:Redirect category shell/doc & formatting as I go. I edit over many days, and other admins (above) have shown no qualms. One un/mis-informed editor screaming at windmills doesn't make windmills disruptive (though they could be construed as disruptive from a Luddite POV, to extend the metaphor). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)- Making up to ten edits a minute means probably less than 2-3 seconds to review the edit, seeing as saving and loading times need to be taken into account as well. A MEATBOT violation is thus a possibility. Whether or not this is the case, is for the community to decide. My note was just meant to remind you to await the result of the discussion and that not doing so can be sanctioned as disruptive editing. I have no personal opinion on the matter at hand. Regards SoWhy 12:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Fortunately, #REDIRECTs are small, load extremely quickly, the diffs are 1-5 lines tall and mostly whitespace, all making checking extremely quick & easy. I could have doubled my speed without sacrificing accuracy, if I wanted to maximally tax my attention, but I decided my sanity was more important. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Tom on this point. An experienced AWB user who knows what the diff should look like could, in a straightforward task like this, do several edits per second without sacrificing accuracy. BD2412 T 20:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Fortunately, #REDIRECTs are small, load extremely quickly, the diffs are 1-5 lines tall and mostly whitespace, all making checking extremely quick & easy. I could have doubled my speed without sacrificing accuracy, if I wanted to maximally tax my attention, but I decided my sanity was more important. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Making up to ten edits a minute means probably less than 2-3 seconds to review the edit, seeing as saving and loading times need to be taken into account as well. A MEATBOT violation is thus a possibility. Whether or not this is the case, is for the community to decide. My note was just meant to remind you to await the result of the discussion and that not doing so can be sanctioned as disruptive editing. I have no personal opinion on the matter at hand. Regards SoWhy 12:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Chief Architect Wikipedia article
Taxonbar
Hey there, I want to add taxonbar in articles (on cz wiki) using AWB but I don't know how to do it with parameter from and specific ID (like you did here). Did you use some specific command? Thank you for your answer RiniX (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @RiniX: I use the MW API to get the QID of a WP page, e.g. Lion, using:
https://en.wikipedia.org//w/api.php?action=query&format=json&prop=pageprops&titles=Lion&formatversion=2&ppprop=wikibase_item
- In AWB's C# module, I use
HTML = Tools.GetHTML(URL), whereHTML&URLare locally defined string variables (URLcontains the above API call), and regex the HTML for the QID. Someone above @ User talk:Tom.Reding/Archive 3#Authority control, ports and wikidata asked a similar question, which you might also find useful. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
References need to be removed
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Van_Kampen#References
Hello, the first three references have broken links and need to be removed, thank you. Mhandels (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Tom,
You can't move a category page or place a category redirect on a category page without reassigning the new category to all of the pages within the old category. So please reassign all of the pages in the old category to the new one or I'll move the category page back to retain the page history. I'll check back in a few days and see if this has been done. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Liz: of course. There are ~1.3M categorized pages for the job queue to work through, so a few days might not be enough. In a few days, I'll start null editing any stubborn old categories not yet processed by then. Let me know you prefer this done sooner. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- In the meantime, I'll be monitoring/clearing Category:Pages with red-linked authority control categories (0). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Why do you capitalise template names?
Why do do you spend so much time using Wikipedia resources endlessly overriding other people's personal preferences by capitalising all the templates in articles? Is it just some satisfaction you get, knowing that you leave in your wake endless trails of needlessly discomforted users. Or is there something else that is actually positive about this behaviour? I know it's trivial to raise the point, but your actions also seem trivial. Except that they seem designed to leave other users feeling a bit down, and that is not really a trivial matter. Is that how you see your role on Wikipedia? Do you really see this as something positive? Have I got this wrong? — Epipelagic (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Epipelagic: I piggyback some cosmetic first-letter-capitalization on more substantial edits since that matches the capitalization at the top and bottom of articles, or the surrounding text, i.e.
{{Infobox ...,{{Automatic taxobox,== References ==& other section headings, {{DEFAULTSORT}},[[Category:..., etc., if that template is at the beginning of the line. Otherwise, and for stub, citation, and protection templates, I don't touch them. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)- You also seem to capitalise the navigation templates. Does this achieve anything apart from slightly (but persistently) discomforting other users with minor (but opposite) personal preferences? — Epipelagic (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Epipelagic: yes, since those fulfill the above criteria. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- But what do those criteria "fulfill" apart from the personal satisfaction of overriding minor personal preferences of other users with your own personal preferences. — Epipelagic (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Epipelagic: unfortunately, I think yours is the minority view. For example, I have consensus from WP:Tree of life @ WT:TOL/Archive 48#Mass cleanup edits?. Do you have consensus for your preference? That isn't to say, you shouldn't edit how you want (feel free to continue as you were), but perhaps you should lower your level of WP:OWNership to accommodate most editors' preferences. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I am referring most specifically to navigation templates. You say you "have consensus from WP:Tree of life" and point to a discussion about some specialist templates confined to that project. But there is no mention there at all, let alone agreement, about capitalising the names of any templates. You say you "think" my view is a minority view, but you offer no evidence that is the case. Moreover, consensus should never be blindly equated with whether a view is a majority view. That would lead to the authoritarian suppression of reasonable differences. Please shine your closing comment about "your level of WP:OWNership" back upon yourself. I am not the one taking ownership of anything here. I'm merely trying to soften some unnecessary ownership you are already taking and inflicting on others. — Epipelagic (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Epipelagic: if you can't provide a link to consensus for your argument, then please don't bother responding. "Canonical titles" is the operative phrase in that discussion. Furthermore, soon after that discussion, I edited ~10,000 pages while performing such capitalization ({{Taxonbar}} is a nav box, and was 1/2 of the intersecting criteria), and then several times that in the following months prior to archiving, and you will find no objections. I took, and I take no ownership in these edits, as I am simply reflecting consensus. Should it change, I'll change with it. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I am referring most specifically to navigation templates. You say you "have consensus from WP:Tree of life" and point to a discussion about some specialist templates confined to that project. But there is no mention there at all, let alone agreement, about capitalising the names of any templates. You say you "think" my view is a minority view, but you offer no evidence that is the case. Moreover, consensus should never be blindly equated with whether a view is a majority view. That would lead to the authoritarian suppression of reasonable differences. Please shine your closing comment about "your level of WP:OWNership" back upon yourself. I am not the one taking ownership of anything here. I'm merely trying to soften some unnecessary ownership you are already taking and inflicting on others. — Epipelagic (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Epipelagic: unfortunately, I think yours is the minority view. For example, I have consensus from WP:Tree of life @ WT:TOL/Archive 48#Mass cleanup edits?. Do you have consensus for your preference? That isn't to say, you shouldn't edit how you want (feel free to continue as you were), but perhaps you should lower your level of WP:OWNership to accommodate most editors' preferences. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- But what do those criteria "fulfill" apart from the personal satisfaction of overriding minor personal preferences of other users with your own personal preferences. — Epipelagic (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Epipelagic: yes, since those fulfill the above criteria. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- You also seem to capitalise the navigation templates. Does this achieve anything apart from slightly (but persistently) discomforting other users with minor (but opposite) personal preferences? — Epipelagic (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Are you saying your use of the phrase "canonical titles" was an obscurantist ploy you used to shield your real intention, which was to capitalise all the templates? Are you claiming the Tree of Life Project understood the intent of your lack of clarity and still gave you a consensus. Even if that were the case (and I don't believe it was), it is merely a consensus from one project about their own templates. It is not a consensus from the Wikipedia community, which is what you need here if you want to claim legitimacy for what you are doing. However, you seem have dug in, and in a way that leaves no room for compromise. So there it is. I'll leave you with it. — Epipelagic (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Authority control again
Is there a reason you're adding authority control to articles again? I thought you said at the ANI that you were going to stop? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- On redirects, yes. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I'll let Only in death speak for himself, but it seemed clear to me that the objections were about all your MEATBOT runs in this regard (particularly on anything other than BLPs, but even those without approval for yourself). It also seemed clear to me that you understood this, given that you stopped the AC edits, and then started Taxonbar, and then stopped those after those were pointed out, and then went quiet for a while (for the rest of the month you made no such AC MEATBOT edits [1]); now it seems you resumed them a few weeks after the ANI was archived, based on the assurances you gave there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Since you're more interested in my edit history (I'm flattered, by the way) than substance, please see the progenitor discussion above @ #Authority control on redirects. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- It was detailed at the subsequent ANI that the problem was broader than redirects, other editors agreed, SoWhy's comments [2][3] suggest that the concern was about this editing behaviour and not 'just redirects', and your editing history at the time shows that you understood these concerns and were stopping. You've now resumed the exact same activities after scrutiny died down. They have no broad consensus support, evidenced opposition, and are in clear violation of the Wikipedia:Bot policy.My question is whether you are going to stop this editing or not, and furthermore what steps you will take to reverse these edits? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Why yes, and there were other comments as well in the discussion, displayed fully, above @ #Authority control on redirects.
You've now resumed the exact same activities
: wrong.- ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- It was detailed at the subsequent ANI that the problem was broader than redirects, other editors agreed, SoWhy's comments [2][3] suggest that the concern was about this editing behaviour and not 'just redirects', and your editing history at the time shows that you understood these concerns and were stopping. You've now resumed the exact same activities after scrutiny died down. They have no broad consensus support, evidenced opposition, and are in clear violation of the Wikipedia:Bot policy.My question is whether you are going to stop this editing or not, and furthermore what steps you will take to reverse these edits? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Since you're more interested in my edit history (I'm flattered, by the way) than substance, please see the progenitor discussion above @ #Authority control on redirects. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I'll let Only in death speak for himself, but it seemed clear to me that the objections were about all your MEATBOT runs in this regard (particularly on anything other than BLPs, but even those without approval for yourself). It also seemed clear to me that you understood this, given that you stopped the AC edits, and then started Taxonbar, and then stopped those after those were pointed out, and then went quiet for a while (for the rest of the month you made no such AC MEATBOT edits [1]); now it seems you resumed them a few weeks after the ANI was archived, based on the assurances you gave there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
ANI
I don't feel this is going to be resolved here, so:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tom.Reding's_use_of_an_unapproved_WP:MEATBOT_to_do_contested_mass-editing_tasks_(again). Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Authority control boxes
Hi, I'm sorry to bother you, but I have very low technical skills. I've tried to follow the discussion on the Talk page for the Authority control box, and I'm baffled. Is it possible to set the default for the Authority control box to "collapse", or not? The categories you've created suggest that it is possible to collapse it? Am I reading that right? If so, how? The box on one page I'm dealing with doesn't seem to have any way to set it to collapse as default, just a "hide" option, which closes it until the next time I go to that page. I would very much appreciate an option to set default-collapse, just like other templates, but I can't tell from the discussion if that is an option? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: tracking categories were created based on Template:Authority control/doc#Rendering, which I think you'll find more useful than my response to Bjerrebæk @ template talk. I have not extensively tested the collapsed/expanded/autocollapse parts of the code (at first glance & sandbox testing of the tracking cats, everything seemed fin), since I didn't write them. I don't have the time to look into it now, but if you're still having problems after reading the /doc, let me know and I'll check it out later. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Reply-link officially superseded by DiscussionTools
Hi! Reply-link has officially been superseded by mw:DiscussionTools, which you can install using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. DiscussionTools, developed by the WMF's Editing Team, is faster and has more features than reply-link, and it wouldn't make sense for me to keep developing reply-link. I think the Editing Team is doing amazing work, and look forward to what they can do in the future. Thank you for using reply-link over the years! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Compliments on your userboxes
- I saw your userboxes and I think it's really cool. But how can I create userboxes like that? HighStone06 (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- @HighStone06: you can see at User:UBX/Authority control, for example, how to make one, and call it via
{{User:UBX/Authority control}}, but first see if someone else hasn't already made what you want to make @ Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries, and read through Wikipedia:Userboxes#Creating a new userbox. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- @HighStone06: you can see at User:UBX/Authority control, for example, how to make one, and call it via
- Okay thank you for the info. HighStone06 (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Cameron Cartee for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Cartee (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
For improving Navseasoncats
|
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
| …or rather, what a succession of brilliant improvements you have made to {{Navseasoncats}}! – Fayenatic London 19:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC) |
Moving templates using AWB
Hello, thank you for your help with Taxonbars. Do you think I could ask you one more time? I need to move one template in the article (on CZ Wiki), precisely move template "Translated page" a few lines above External links (basically something like this). Is there some simple command in AWB or it's better to use a script? I was searching all night but couldn't find a solution how to move a template with all data in it. Thank you RiniX (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)