User talk:Ahecht

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 3PPYB6 (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 15 March 2024 (→‎Infobox Election is broken again.: @Ahecht "[[File:Problems with infobox election te..." [Factotum]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

JWB fyi...

From your JWB run doing WP:PEIS edits on Feb 7, the following edit broke the last table on the page: [1]. Seems the change of |dontclose=y which added a template close did not account for the existing template close of {{Episode table}}. I'm not sure if the JWB regex/script you're running there is one you use regularly, or if it was just a one-off run, but you may want to review this to improve/adjust your script for future use. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Butlerblog Thanks for the heads up. The RegEx I'm using is pretty crude so I have to search for those sorts of edge cases manually on each page before saving. Looks like I missed one. The good news is that the flurry of edits that I did adding |dontclose=y were because an update to the module behind {{episode table}} caused a bunch of TV show pages to exceed the limit, so hopefully I shouldn't have to do any more of those particular edits in the future. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits broke templates

The names of the senators are no longer showing after this edit. Please fix or revert. There are a lot of them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95 Thanks, don't know why I didn't catch that. They're all set now. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 06:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick fixes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Election is broken again.

See, e.g. this page, please fix ASAP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_United_States_presidential_election_in_Nebraska. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every single election page is broken, please revert or fix ASAP!! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DemocraticLuntz@Eejit43 All fixed. I had tested it and had it working in my sandbox, but it looks like I pasted in the wrong version. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in this code:
{{#invoke:Math|max|
the final "|" should be removed. It gets a duplicate "1" parm error. Davemck (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davemck Strange, I didn't see any errors pop up in my testing, but you're absolutely right, that pipe shouldn't be there. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ahecht—the alliance parameter is still going wonky (unless it is some other bad input)—please see the image I uploaded to the right. Also, please refer to Template talk:Infobox election; there is more discussion over there. — 3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 18:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ahecht&oldid=1213889774"