User talk:Amalthea

Hello, and welcome to my talk page.

If I post on a talk page please respond there. I'll be watching it for a while. No need to {{talkback}} me unless you think I missed it.
If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here (unless you request otherwise, here or on your talkpage), so please watch this page.

Archives

Archive 1 (2006-04-24 – 2008-12-11)
Archive 2 (2008-12-10 – 2009-05-15)
Archive 3 (2009-05-07 – 2009-10-30)
Archive 4 (2009-10-04 – 2010-05-28)
Archive 5 (2010-05-28 – 2011-05-10)
Archive 6 (2011-05-09 – 2012-05-26)
Archive 7 (2012-04-08 – 2013-12-15)
Archive 8 (2014-01-01 – )

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

&wpWatch=0

On the (0) button shown on WP:USURP requests (the move pages magic), do you have any idea why this isn't properly unchecking the "watch source and target pages" box? Are my prefs overriding it? –xeno^talk 14:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes and no:

As long as your preference is set to watch pages you move, there's no way to get MediaWiki leave that checkbox unticked. That's stupid, but MediaWiki is at least consistent that way: Those watchlist settings are always that aggressive.
SpecialMovepage doesn't check for "0" or "1" in wpWatch, it checks for existance. Why I don't know, but it means that even if you change your preferences to not watchlist pages you move, a "wpWatch=0" will tick the ckechbox since the parameter exists. It needs to be removed completely.

No idea whether there are bugzilla issues for any of this. FWIW, you can of course use javascript:

if (wgNamespaceNumber==-1 && wgCanonicalSpecialPageName=="Movepage") addOnloadHook(function() {
  if (getURLParamValue("reason")!="WP:USURP") return;
  var node = document.getElementById("watch");
  if (node && node.checked) node.checked = false;
});

Amalthea 14:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier just to untick the box, or does that javascript do something special to know that I'm in the middle of a usurp request and don't want those pages watched (meanwhile if I am moving a page for other reasons, I do)? –xeno^talk 14:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it does (bit hackish). And err, yes, it doesn't do more than untick the box. :) Yes, you could do with a document.getElementById("watch").checked = false in your user script, more or less, but the code above is a bit more robust. Amalthea 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Works great =) Thanks! Isn't it silly we have to do so much just to get the software to do something intuitive? =] –xeno^talk 15:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diff2

Why is this needed? Hey Mid (contributions) 15:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's noted in the history of the template: WP:NAVPOP doesn't work if the link doesn't have a title. Amalthea 15:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Timmy Polo regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multibox

Hi, I'm just wondering what this template is? I'm only seeing two actual uses of it, and it's not at all clear what the advantage is over using {{editnotice}} or {{fmbox}}. PC78 (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The goal was to use the same text both in an editnotice and in a talk page banner (specifically Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia talk:Contact us and Wikipedia talk:Contact us/header), without having to maintain it in two places, while showing them in the customary styles of each context (most notably 80% width on talk page, 100% width in editnotice). There are a couple of ways to do that, like extracting the text into a third template and transcluding from there, or passing a fixed width in the talk page transclusion. I think the cleanest and easiest way is to pass in the box type on the talk page header transclusion, so that all the styles and features of either box are automatically used, and all future template changes are automatically applied. That's what multibox does.
That's also pretty much the only place I can think of where it is useful: In editnotices, if you want to use the same text in another context.
Amalthea 22:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be useful for keeping {{BLP}} and {{BLP editintro}} in sync. But could this flexibility not be added to {{mbox}}? PC78 (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice, but from the top off my head I can't think of a way to figure out whether a template is currently displayed in an editnotice, let alone arbitrary header message. Mbox only switches on namespace, at the moment, and I don't think we want to allow passing in a box template variable there. Amalthea 00:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had a crack at using this template at {{BLP/sandbox2}}. Do you think you could add support for {{tmbox}}? This would be preferable to using {{mbox}} in this case. PC78 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I've kept the text in {{BLP editintro/sandbox}}, which is then pulled into {{BLP/sandbox2}}. Texts need to be consolidated, they have minor differences in the live versions of the templates.
Cheers, Amalthea 09:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no opinion on the variations in wording, though the wording in the editnotice is perhaps better; I will of course be starting a discussion for this in due course. However, I'm not sure what you're doing with {{BLP editintro/sandbox}}. {{BLP}} is the primary template here, so the idea would be to deprecate {{BLP editintro}} in favour of {{BLP|boxtype=editnotice}}. Unless you have a better idea? PC78 (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't deprecate the edit intro template, MediaWiki displays an edit intro page as is, meaning you can't pass any parameters into it. And I wouldn't deprecate {{BLP}} either but turn it into a meta template transcluding the intro, it's simpler to maintain the talk check and categorization that way, and much easier to use, with the advantage that the same text is used both times. Amalthea 08:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. But in that case, why not replace the content of {{BLP editintro}} with {{BLP|boxtype=editnotice}} instead? PC78 (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tiny bit simpler. For example, {{BLP}} currently transcludes {{check talk}}, which displays a big warning if ever rendered in a namespace other than Talk. That warning would have to be suppressed in the edit intro, i.e. wrapped in some odd {{#ifeq:{{{boxtype}}}|editnotice||{{ckeck talk}}}}. The same goes for the categorization, the __NOINDEX__, the {{documentantion}}.
Certainly possible, but it's just simpler and more readable the other way around. :)
Amalthea 14:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Okey-doke. :) PC78 (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Amalthea. You have new messages at Template talk:Talkback#Edit request.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also, has TW been fully merged with Friendly yet? I tried disabling Friendly and the opposite way, but the buttons disappeared for the specific tools. Hey Mid (contributions) 10:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to talk to SchuminWeb about the plans there. Amalthea 15:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

Looking in my talk archive I find a reply I wrote to you didn't get posted (maybe ec, maybe when WP went down). Lest you think I me discourteous I replicate it here as well as I can remember. Rich Farmbrough, 16:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

One option might be to pick a number here (eg. five). As soon as this number of threads are open and not yet archived, then hold off the edits until one of the threads gets auto-archived. This would ensure that all threads got the attention deserved, ensure that all bug reports were seen and not missed, and ensure that the edits being done really were of an above-average quality and truly uncontroversial nature. —Sladen (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I've actually dumped auto-archiving by date anyway as there are too many problems, albeit minor. Many thanks to Mizabot and WerdnaBot and the others for years of service. Rich Farmbrough, 06:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

What is? Rich Farmbrough, 10:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Sladen: "If a issue point is controversial [...] then it should not be being altered en-masse by automated means [...] One option might be to pick a number here (eg. five). As soon as this number of threads are open and not yet archived, then hold off the edits [...]" – You: "That's a good idea, [...]". Amalthea 12:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is nonsense, I meant the bit about "ensure that all threads got the attention deserved, ensure that all bug reports were seen and not missed". RF ,whatever date and time it was.>

- and indeed my new archiving regime is a vast improvement over the old one. Rich Farmbrough, 16:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Heh, not quite sure what that means (I've unwatched your page a while ago), but alright. Here's a stupid question though, somewhat related: why can't you just use your watchlist? It can't be /that/ broken. If it's so full that you can't clear it through the web interface anymore, you should still be able to clear it one page at a time via API, and start from scratch? Amalthea 17:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I got it down from about 36,000 to 20,000 - but there was stuff I did actually want to watch - but I will loose track of if I wipe it. So it's really just a question of finding time. And I might copy it off-line and watch stuff using a different mechanism. But basically it just grewed when I was starting out and I never got it back under control. And hence I never really used it, so I don't miss it. Rich Farmbrough, 20:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Too big to be of any use, yet too useful to discard? Catch 22. :)
But I think you do miss it if you have to build elaborate thread copying mechanisms to stay on top of conversations. ;)
Cheers, Amalthea 20:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Yes true. But I like the mechanism of the orange bar for timely stuff - though sometimes it gets that "oh no, what now?" quality about it. As you say once I get watch-list working I'll probably wonder how I managed without it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks …

Hello. You have a new message at Riick's talk page.

[1] Freudian slip, no doubt. –xeno^talk 14:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with my signature template

Hello again, Amalthea … A few months ago, you gave me a hand cleaning up the subst: with #if statements in {{Flag-article}} and {{Flag-editor}} … could you please give me a hand with User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/Anon sig? If you edit this message, you will see how the #if is embedded in the signature. <Sigh!>

To be honest, I'm just not up to the challenge of learning another syntax/language at the moment, but seeing how much useless text is left behind with each use of this template seems enough of a waste of bandwidth that I'm annoyed enough to want to do something about it. :-) Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{01:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Done - Never mind … I figured it out. ;-} Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk) _{02:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

List of Cambodian singers

Per a request at WP:RFPP, I've just semi'd this article for one week. There have been a series of "odd" edits by an IP - 125.25.15.166 (talk), which seems very similar to an IP previously involved with the article and its AFD. It looks to me like WP:OWN on the aprt of the IP, but since you've been involved with this before could you sanity-check my protection? I've really no objection to reducing/lifting/extending protection as needed. Thanks! TFOWR 16:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 editors with same range of dynamic IP involved with this articles. Please make sure. Ask me if it was me or not.--125.25.15.166 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a WP:OWN article. There is another editor with same range IP. Probably 2 editors.--125.25.15.166 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've investigated. It seems like I was editing with 2 more IP editor with same range, in the latest mission, his IPs seems to be 180.180.109.229. In the past month only 2 editors was edited. Me and another Thai editor. There seems to be another editor.--125.25.15.166 (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a sorry article for that much trouble. I note two things:

I agree that the person who started restructuring the article today (and eventually redirected it) appears to be the same as the person who tried to speedy and renominate the article for deletion a while ago.
There was however a recent AfD discussion on the article and it was decided that the topic should in principle be included in Wikipedia. Unless there are new arguments or there is strong reason to believe that that consensus is not longer valid, it shouldn't be redirected to the category, or deleted. See WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates about why the community wants both kinds.

I've left a comment at Talk:List of Cambodian singers about a possible way forward. I'm not really sure what problems 125.25.* sees with the article, but if the underlying issue is resolved I assume that protection is no longer necessary. Amalthea 17:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. The 125.25 IP did try and redirect earlier, but then seemed to be more productive - and I note that they are now engaged on the talkpage. I'll hope for the best! Thanks again, TFOWR 17:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!! YOU'VE DONE RECOVER!! MOVE IT TO MAIN!!--125.25.15.166 (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]