User talk:Jenks24
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
|
Welcome to my talk page! Here's a few notes that may be helpful to read before posting:
|
Beta tester
Hi Jenks, I'd like to enlist your help to 'beta test' my new sources script. I've written up most of the documentation and built up most of the script functionality. There are already three extensive in-built libraries/vocabularies (1,2,3) but which I will continue extending. There's still work to be done to minimise the disruption to existing linkages and optimise the precision in dab. I'd value your input regarding any aspect, whether the documentation, objectives, structure or the library itself, and of course how it works. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 01:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- At this stage, if you are OK with the trialling, I'd ask you to pay equal attention to false negatives as much as false positives. Thanks, -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 01:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, I'd be happy to test it out. I'll 'install' it after replying here. I should add I'm struggling to have a lot of time for Wikipedia at the moment, so hopefully I'm not the only one willing to help. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed there wasn't much activity at your end, just do what you can. I am aiming to officially launch it on 1 December subject to satisfactory trials, so hope you will have some time between now and then. Oh, FYI, Batty has had problems running the script on IE8, just so you know. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 12:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, the script I would like you to test resides at User:Ohconfucius/test/Sources.js; you might need to disable 'User:Ohconfucius/script/Sources.js' as there may be conflicts due to identical function names. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 00:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- PS, I'll be away for a week. So if you would like to help, you can save up your comments and post them to User talk:Ohconfucius/script. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 12:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, I'd be happy to test it out. I'll 'install' it after replying here. I should add I'm struggling to have a lot of time for Wikipedia at the moment, so hopefully I'm not the only one willing to help. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD G6
You recently participated in a discussion at WP:AN that has now produced a new section at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD G6.
Thanks for your earlier comments, and I hope you might also participate in this new discussion. Andrewa (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Inappropriate move
This user told me about the move here and he has moved the page without waiting for anyone's opinion or consensus! --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. I haven't looked too closely at the case in question, but in general there is nothing wrong with boldly moving a page if you believe it will be uncontroversial. However, if you (or anyone else) disagrees with the move you should feel free to revert it and go through a proper RM discussion. See WP:BRD. Jenks24 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
T:AH
I think you made a poor decision with that move. This is similar to requests to rename featured articles for (at best) trivial reasons - such moves have no real benefit and they can create problems for those who use the page, including bots. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your position, but I stand by me decision. As I wrote in my closing comment, if you can show technical problems that have been made by the move, and they can't be fixed relatively easily, I will move it back. Also, in case you were not aware, RM closures can now be reviewed at WP:MRV. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Your response did not provide much explanation of your reasoning. If you have nothing further to say, please initiate a move review. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, so your first comment was asking for a more detailed explanation, not just expressing your dissatisfaction with my close. For future reference, you might want to be less oblique when discussing things with me. Here goes with the explanation: WP:AT doesn't explicitly cover templates (and there is no guideline for them), but in closing I tried to follow the general principles of that policy. Those in support offered several (relatively) compelling reasons to move – consistency with other related templates, easier to read, easier to find (debatable, but still arguably correct and not refuted in the RM) and accessibility to newer editors. Yes, there were also some crap arguments in support, but that's what the decent arguments boiled down to. In opposition we have: several users claim it will break things and/or make things difficult for bots/scripts, but there's no evidence provided (and it's a bit cheeky, but I will note nothing of the sort seems to have happened in the weeks after the move); the large majority of transclusions use the current title (a relatively solid argument if not one that normally holds mush weight at RM); a claim that inconsistency would make things harder for you but again without evidence; "a redirect exists" – one of the worst possible RM arguments; a claim that the move would create a lot of work and possibly break things, but again without any evidence; and the rest was pretty much per you. So, my reading of the RM was that the support arguments were significantly stronger than the oppose. Two notes: sorry if my analysis of the oppose comments reads a lot like I'm deconstructing your vote, but that's basically because most of the oppose votes were per you; and sorry if this reads as a bit disjointed (and for the excessive use of parentheses!), but it was a few weeks ago and I had jog my memory a few times as I was writing this. Last, I'm not sure why you want me to initiate a move review – I still stand by my decision. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Any issues you fail to mention now will be considered in analyzing your awareness of all aspects of this move. That you have now called me "cheeky" is itself evidence, considering that you said nothing of how the user who made the nomination had previously moved it in violation of previous discussion, then asserted without evidence that the move was not controversial, then claimed without evidence that the move without not affect any script or bot, and then claimed as a formal matter of record that he would fix any and all issues that may ever happen as a result of this move. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please re-read what I wrote. I was calling myself cheeky for noting that the move does not appear to have adversely affected any bots, scripts, etc. I was aware of the aspects you mention (and plenty of others, the above is only a summary of the points that impacted the outcome of the RM), but I don't see anything incredibly wrong with what Thumperward did. Yes, he shouldn't have moved it without discussion, but when this was brought to his attention he moved it back less than 24 hours later and started a RM. As the template was located at the long term title the fact that it had been recently moved did not factor into my decision. And yes, Thumperward did not offer any evidence, I assume because it is difficult to prove a negative in this case. To perhaps clarify what I wrote above, when I say "evidence", even an explanation of how this would have affected your bot would have carried much more weight than a simple assertion. Jenks24 (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody asked, so clearly that consideration was irrelevant to those "voting" for the move. That's one of the ssues here - those "voting" for moving this showed no regard for the time and effort of someone who has spent years working on this. Indeed, one of those "voters" was turned down at RfA recently, and one of the reasons was a disregard for the work of others on this site. "Votes" for a change that do not cite any policy or guideline for that change are, almost by definition, ILIKEIT votes that do not merit further comment. That some of them empty votes were accompanied by incivility is further indication that something else was going on here than discussion a move. Gimmetrow 13:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid "nobody asked" doesn't pass muster. I can only judge the arguments as they are made and if no evidence is presented then that will factor into my decision. OK, you're taking this way too personally (what on earth does someone failing a RfA have to do with this?) and my advice at this point would be to drop it. To me at least, your constant assertions that people only supported this move to irritate you are coming across as paranoid. If not, start a MRV, but I won't be changing my decision. Jenks24 (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- When the author of software says it will affect things, and you don't want to take that person's word, then you need to say more that just make attacks on that author. But that's fine. User:Thumperward has formally declared as a matter record that 1) there cannot possibly be any issues, and 2) User:Thumperward will fix any and all issues that may ever result The only practical way User:Thumperward could possibly "fix" issues is to move the template back to where it was. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid "nobody asked" doesn't pass muster. I can only judge the arguments as they are made and if no evidence is presented then that will factor into my decision. OK, you're taking this way too personally (what on earth does someone failing a RfA have to do with this?) and my advice at this point would be to drop it. To me at least, your constant assertions that people only supported this move to irritate you are coming across as paranoid. If not, start a MRV, but I won't be changing my decision. Jenks24 (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody asked, so clearly that consideration was irrelevant to those "voting" for the move. That's one of the ssues here - those "voting" for moving this showed no regard for the time and effort of someone who has spent years working on this. Indeed, one of those "voters" was turned down at RfA recently, and one of the reasons was a disregard for the work of others on this site. "Votes" for a change that do not cite any policy or guideline for that change are, almost by definition, ILIKEIT votes that do not merit further comment. That some of them empty votes were accompanied by incivility is further indication that something else was going on here than discussion a move. Gimmetrow 13:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please re-read what I wrote. I was calling myself cheeky for noting that the move does not appear to have adversely affected any bots, scripts, etc. I was aware of the aspects you mention (and plenty of others, the above is only a summary of the points that impacted the outcome of the RM), but I don't see anything incredibly wrong with what Thumperward did. Yes, he shouldn't have moved it without discussion, but when this was brought to his attention he moved it back less than 24 hours later and started a RM. As the template was located at the long term title the fact that it had been recently moved did not factor into my decision. And yes, Thumperward did not offer any evidence, I assume because it is difficult to prove a negative in this case. To perhaps clarify what I wrote above, when I say "evidence", even an explanation of how this would have affected your bot would have carried much more weight than a simple assertion. Jenks24 (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Any issues you fail to mention now will be considered in analyzing your awareness of all aspects of this move. That you have now called me "cheeky" is itself evidence, considering that you said nothing of how the user who made the nomination had previously moved it in violation of previous discussion, then asserted without evidence that the move was not controversial, then claimed without evidence that the move without not affect any script or bot, and then claimed as a formal matter of record that he would fix any and all issues that may ever happen as a result of this move. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, so your first comment was asking for a more detailed explanation, not just expressing your dissatisfaction with my close. For future reference, you might want to be less oblique when discussing things with me. Here goes with the explanation: WP:AT doesn't explicitly cover templates (and there is no guideline for them), but in closing I tried to follow the general principles of that policy. Those in support offered several (relatively) compelling reasons to move – consistency with other related templates, easier to read, easier to find (debatable, but still arguably correct and not refuted in the RM) and accessibility to newer editors. Yes, there were also some crap arguments in support, but that's what the decent arguments boiled down to. In opposition we have: several users claim it will break things and/or make things difficult for bots/scripts, but there's no evidence provided (and it's a bit cheeky, but I will note nothing of the sort seems to have happened in the weeks after the move); the large majority of transclusions use the current title (a relatively solid argument if not one that normally holds mush weight at RM); a claim that inconsistency would make things harder for you but again without evidence; "a redirect exists" – one of the worst possible RM arguments; a claim that the move would create a lot of work and possibly break things, but again without any evidence; and the rest was pretty much per you. So, my reading of the RM was that the support arguments were significantly stronger than the oppose. Two notes: sorry if my analysis of the oppose comments reads a lot like I'm deconstructing your vote, but that's basically because most of the oppose votes were per you; and sorry if this reads as a bit disjointed (and for the excessive use of parentheses!), but it was a few weeks ago and I had jog my memory a few times as I was writing this. Last, I'm not sure why you want me to initiate a move review – I still stand by my decision. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your response did not provide much explanation of your reasoning. If you have nothing further to say, please initiate a move review. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Cetaganda
Thanks for the move! I'd totally forgotten about that one. Now I just need to fix all the links... Euchrid (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Pls help me! There is a anon user who always delete Ștefan Kovács Hungarian's name (István Kovács) from the infobox. Stefan Kovács was Hungarian and normally used to his native name. Absolutely logical thing to indicate this name in the infobox like several another any artcile. Thanks. - Csurla (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Csurla did not provide any source that the native name of Kovács was István and not Ștefan. The Hungarian name, just like the form Ștefan Covaci is given between parentheses in the lead section, I think this is is enough. We don't have to write these two alternative names in the infobox too 79.117.184.208 (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)