User talk:Anomie
| Anomie is still around, mostly to maintain AnomieBOT. But after the WMF proved that office politics are more important to them than seemingly anything else, and otherwise generally seem more concerned with their own image than substance, Anomie is not engaging in technical work on MediaWiki. |
 | Despite T360488 asking them not to, Toolforge admins have gone ahead and broken AnomieBOT's scripts. Keeping things running properly will likely require manual intervention until they fix that or give me a usable workaround. |
 | If you want AnomieBOT to do something, please ask at User talk:AnomieBOT. Thanks. |
"About your motivations"
[edit]([1]) motivations? What do I as an editor gain by having a file on Commons? I'm confused, kindly clarify. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 11:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- As a Commons admin who has tried multiple times to limit uses of Template:Keep local, it seems to me that you may be motivated by your perception of what's good for Commons rather than by what's good for the English Wikipedia. That you reacted so strongly when I pointed that out strengthens my impression. Beyond that, I'm not interested in trying to change your mind. Anomie⚔ 11:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man, I apologise for reacting harshly to your comment. It felt like a personal attack to me, but it might have been a genuine concern. This keep local discussion is going nowhere so I've closed it, and I'll stay away from that template for a bit if it's causing problems. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 14:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man, I apologise for reacting harshly to your comment. It felt like a personal attack to me, but it might have been a genuine concern. This keep local discussion is going nowhere so I've closed it, and I'll stay away from that template for a bit if it's causing problems. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
Possible cleanup in your monobook.js
[edit]Hi, T373286#10106458 onward, then some searches on enwiki, brought me here.
Following up to 514424584 and 630235814, actually the issue had been fixed shortly after: 630361822 (also refs discussion). So you might want to remove the code from 630235814.
Od1n (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like you're right. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 03:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Pending changes protection history
[edit]Regarding your comment: editors are distrustful of proposals to try pending changes protection in new ways because the initial trial deployment didn't end on schedule. (The link in question was to the RfC that reached consensus to stop deployment (with as I recall, some exceptions like pending changes protection set by WMF staff as an office action).) I wrote up a longer explanation before realizing that you were editing during that time period, so you may recall the feelings of various editors from that time. isaacl (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- And then a year later in another RFC people decided to start using it again. 🤷 In the later RFC I linked, people were opposing based on vague statements that it has "problems", nothing about it not being turned off right away at the end of the original trial. Anomie⚔ 02:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just saying that the linked RfC provided context of the historical distrust.
- Regarding problems, pending changes has bugs, and there is no software development team currently up-to-speed on its implementation and thus readily able to fix them. As a result, some editors don't want to make pending changes more prominent in our processes, and aren't very hopeful about any enhancements. This is, however, a separate issue from the historical distrust. isaacl (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Bot request
[edit]Hi Anomie - I saw your bot just corrected a reference error in a footnote at Krüper's nuthatch. There remains a problem with this footnote though; it is still giving "Error on call to Template:cnote: Parameter #1 (name of content note) and parameter #2 (text of content note) must both be entered". I couldn't work out what is wrong there (in over a dozen change attempts in preview!), could you see if you could sort it out, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, I think I found it, it was a problem with an "=" sign - MPF (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
[edit] | Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Anomie! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |  |
October 14 (15 for some) 2024
[edit]Hello anomie, I’ve been considering making a doppelgänger account that I will use on Spanish Wikipedia. However I have edited on this account on Spanish Wikipedia. Do you think I should? I’ve just been looking through admins to ask in the admins list and found you.
Have a good day! Interested inTaxonomy (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
[edit] | |
| Four years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
[edit]Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,