User talk:Osarius/Archive 7

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Break Time.

This page contains words and phrases that may be considered offensive or vulgar.

I'm on a break. Anyone who wants me (but I highly doubt it), or would like to take the time to teach me on how not to screw things up around here without taking the effin' biscuit, can reach me by emailing me. I read the policies we have on here, take action with them in mind on pages that obviously are complete bollocks and get doggy-styled for it. I'm not gonna play the WP:IAR or vandalising tactic, I've been fighting it for so long I know not to stoop so low. I'll still be around in the background working on the FES and possibly WP:RA/I, but for the foreseeable future, that's it. Got any questions? Email me. Got nothing nice to say? I don't want to hear your crap. Simple as. Got a problem? I really couldn't give a fuck. I may be back. I doubt my disappearance for a while is really that great a loss anyway.

Osarius Talk 00:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Osarius Talk 12:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak

I certainly hope it wasn't my question that made you throw in the towel: I was legitimately questioning your nomination, as it did not appear to me that the user was purely vandalizing. I thought maybe you had dealt with this user as a sock before, so I wanted to hear your reasoning. It was meant to come off as an inquiry and gentle admonishment for quick warning, nothing more. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 00:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning for tagging that page with the criteria I did was as follows:

The page was complete bollocks. It had no real purpose. Therefore perhaps not the most kosher of taggings, but G3.
The page was an attack page, towards the people listed at the bottom of it, hence G10.
Again, probably not the most kosher of taggings, but G2 because it was a new article by a new user who probably hasn't read WP:MOS, or the new article guidelines set out on the wizard, because again it was CB.

So there's my reasoning. Right or wrong, the article was deleted under those criteria. Even if 2 were incorrect, G10 was, and the deleting admin didn't have to delete it under G2 or G3. I am not shifting blame, just pointing this out. But as I say, I'm ready for a break anyway apart from the background hand-coding with the WMF team. Osarius Talk 00:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was definitely not questioning the CSD tag, those were clearly justified. It was more the instant vandalism report; seemed to me the user hadn't demonstrated malice enough to be blocked. Anyways, best of luck, hope to see you back minus any troubles. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 00:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning for the AIV report: The user has a last warning template on their usertalk. I don't know if the user had deleted previous warnings without going through their talkpage history (something I'm not gonna do for every trouble user I come across). My warning was placed after the final warning, so I report to AIV as in my mind and in the evidence I can see on my screen, it was after a final. Thanks for your wellwishing. Osarius Talk 01:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giving reply I did to TParis

TParis no see, just edit I make? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzy butternut (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Enjoying the welcome sound you got there ;) Littledanno159 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. When you recently edited Darwin Forest Country Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashbourne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Osarius. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AmandaParker.
Message added 10:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sudo Ghost 10:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks! Moved to here.

Thanks! It's been fun and I've learnt a lot through it. I should be back properly soon. Osarius Talk 11:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! Can't wait :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token 66daf54c31bb03940b0098079dcf39ca

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

New Pages update

Hey Osarius/Archive 7 :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.

On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).

On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Triage prototype released

Hey Osarius! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Triage/New Pages Feed

Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.

The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rhia charles for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rhia charles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhia charles until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of American Airlines Flight 1340 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Airlines Flight 1340 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 1340 until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. ...William 17:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar time

Moved to here. Thank you!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.