Home | Bling | Content | Userboxen | Editcount | Talk | Guestbook |
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this user asks you to take precautions:
1. Maintain social distancing by starting new posts in new sections, to avoid contaminating other users. 2. Follow the one-way system by putting new posts at the bottom. 3. Sign your comments to facilitate contact tracing. |
Saw that on my watchlist and wondered what the tarnation does that mean? Looked at the diff and laughed. Well done. It is nice to laugh for a change amongst all the vandalism entries on the watchlist. Bgwhite ( talk) 07:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rich_Farmbrough/British_places_with_coord_and_no_pic
Note: that this may include non-place entities, e.g. people in the category tree that have burial coordinates. But then there may well be a nice photo of their tomb/grave/crypt.
If you let me know any items without coords or with images, improvement may be possible.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC).
Hello WereSpielChequers! At our
earlier discussion at
WT:Autopatrolled you said "Many people get nominated or are nominated for this user right, and occasionally when we have a list I and others trawl through the list of prolific article creators and appoint suitable ones as autopatrollers."
Well, I'm starting to parse through the data to try to figure out how many editors there are with 20-50 (non-redirect) articles created (which I'm having to do manually via
Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count!) But what I'm finding alarming is the number of (still active) editors that have 50-100 (non-redirect) articles created and who don't have "Autopatrolled" rights! So, I'm thinking that I'd like to nominate some of these for Autopatrolled rights – How do I do that? Thanks in advance! --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 20:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The WMF put out some extremely misleading statements. Some of your comments in the Village Pump discussion were incorrect (not your fault).
I spoke with the Flow project manager [1]. They have not diminished work on Flow, they are working full speed ahead on specific features for Flow. When the WMF says that their new work is going to be driven by the needs of the Community, they mean they decided what they wanted to give us, then they did research interviews with a couple of editors, then they shoehorned those responses to fit what they wanted to build. I spoke to one of the people they interviewed - the WMF staff interviewing him didn't even know the Community had already built the functionality they are working on. Specifically they are building a replacement for scripts like Twinkle, except their version won't work on existing pages. The Flow team is going full speed ahead, building a project that largely duplicates functionality we already built, and they are deliberately designing it so it won't work unless we convert every goddamn page on Wikipedia into Flow chatboards. Oh.... and it doesn't work unless you switch to Visual Editor too.
In the last election for WMF board of directors, all three elected candidates ran on a platform that Flow could not be deployed if the community didn't want it. So.... the WMF is restricting new development and support to Flow. If we want any new features, if we want any continuing support, we have to take Flow first. There's not much chance of the WMF willingly picking up the autosign project. They want our editor *gone*. Alsee ( talk) 19:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It's possible you may vaguely remember me. We had a fair bit of contact several years ago, but I became pretty disillusioned by certain aspects of the whole project (specifically with regard to fair use images) and I have been on pretty substantial wiki-break. Now I'm willingly getting pulled back in to things and I'm once again finding everything for the most part interesting, challenging and enjoyable.
Anyway, I was wondering if you might have any observations you might share about how editing culture has changed since 2011. There are a few things I have noticed that are at least as bad, and in some ways worse, than they were before:
I suppose a lot of these things could have been written in 2011. Maybe not much has changed. Certainly the ongoing trend away from the "optimistic content creators" of 2006 towards the "pessimistic gatekeepers" who will eventually control everything is very noticeable when you take a few years away.
Cheers,
Thparkth ( talk) 15:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I know and have been following Wikipedia articles for many years though I never knew how to write or edit one until a few months ago. I am from India and yes, people are getting more involved about from where and how all that information is coming. I am new writer and I have made a few edits; making edits is easier now due to visual formatting. It's very helpful.
Dishita Bhowmik ( talk) 17:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Thought I would move this discussion into it's own section, hope that's OK.
I could definitely update Wikipedia:Database_reports/Editors_eligible_for_Autopatrol_privilege but that page "belongs" to the Database Reports project and Community Tech Bot is updating it with its slightly-less-useful information twice each month. I suspect it is theoretically possible to have my script run through that mechanism, but I haven't worked in that environment before and there would likely be a learning curve involved. Going that way may end up being dependent on the same overworked volunteers who haven't yet been able to action your request to modify the current report.
It would be much, much easier to put my data somewhere else. Any thoughts?
Finally I have updated User:Thparkth/autopatroltest with data from December 18th.
Cheers,
Thparkth ( talk) 22:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I have forgotten how I created the old list, but I found a note on Meta from you asking for a list split by {{
Infobox UK place}}
vs everything else.
As I remarked I am still severely restricted in what I am permitted to do, so the list(s) will have to be placed in my user space, from where they can be copied, moved or transcluded.
I have been tussling with a huge (somewhat related) issue of producing accurate region codes for some 100k+ articles, success rate is now about 87-88% (compared with much less than 50% before I started) but of course the last 20% is going to be 80% of the work.
Nonetheless the first list should be uploaded soon. The rest will have to go on my todo list for now.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 03:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC).
native tongue as tool | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 432 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Four years now! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
... and five! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
... and six! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
... and seven! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
It's been a while but the all-singing, all-dancing, new version of the report code is now working and its first results are on the report page. I would be grateful if you would let me know about any problems you identify in the output.
Thanks for setting me along this road by the way - this kind of work is a lot of fun for me, and I now have all the access required to fix, modify, and create new reports without undue delay. Thparkth ( talk) 23:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
You've fixed a lot of my shoddy reduplicative errors ("the the") etc recently and I appreciate it a lot. › Mortee talk 21:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I noticed that you've removed the second the in "the German adaption of the The Best Singers series.", and that you've performed a large number of similar edits with AWB. I don't think this is correct, however, as the final the is part of a proper noun which forms a separate syntactic unit, so the preceding article is still necessary, in my understanding - although a rewording of the sentence would most likely be preferable, as the repetition of the is obviously awkward. If there is an obscure grammatical rule permitting omission of the article, I would be pleased to read it, but otherwise I'd request that you be more careful or stop using AWB for this particular change, and go through the previous such edits again. Thanks. Kranix ( talk | contribs) 18:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I saw the edit you made beenath->beneath. This kind of edits can be easily done using the tool in the title. Let me know if you need any help setting it up. Uziel302 ( talk) 15:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
importScript('User:Uziel302/typo.js');
to your
User:WereSpielChequers/common.js. This tool adds simple buttons to the lis: replace, remove, no much to learn. If after 5 minutes you don't like it, you can revert the edit on you common.js. No need to divide work as every checked typo should be removed from the list. The typos are sorted alphabetically so you can see those who happen couple of time, these are the top reccurring ones:unveilled - 9 receving - 9 awll - 8 teching - 7 coveres - 7 appearanced - 7 adiation - 7 sceni - 6 unnotated - 6 predomnantly - 6 featureed - 6
Thanks again, Uziel302 ( talk) 05:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I made: Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click/list by occurrence. Uziel302 ( talk) 18:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you could try using the script for fixing and dismissing typos of Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click and give some feedback. Thanks. Uziel302 ( talk) 17:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Just updated the list on User:Uziel302/sandbox to current dump. Uziel302 ( talk) 18:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
It is not immediately clear whether it's vandalism or good faith editing, but I am required by policy to assume the latter in the absence of evidence to the contrary. What makes it so difficult to assume good faith is that you have edited over 200 articles contributed to by well in excess of that number of editors and yet you assume that you are right and therefore every one else must be wrong. You have been industriously changing "dependant" in all those articles to "dependent". "dependant" is the correct spelling of the word (see [ here]). "dependent" seems to be creeping in as a alternate spelling (historically: it is an olde English spelling often still used by the legal profession). There was no reason to change the spelling per WP:NOTBROKEN.
On the subject of plurals, an apostrophe is not used when pluralising a word. However: English, as ever, has its exceptions and decades is one of those exceptions. Thus referring to the 1970's as a decade is correctly apostrophised. Another good (topical) example would be, "The United Kingdom will be leaving Europe on the 31st of October, no if's or but's". - 86.130.28.61 ( talk) 12:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, an
old edit, but your script broke a citation template by corrupting its |url=
value. If you have not already fixed it, please do so.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, what? You'll have to explain that one to me. Echetus Xe 13:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
This gave me a chuckle. Thanks for the help! Cheers! --
Engineerchange (
talk) 14:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi - this from my talk:
There are still only 11 in the commons cat - I think he had taken some before, but not uploaded them, Best, Johnbod ( talk) 05:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter
This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:
Talk pages project
The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.
It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.
An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.
New Project: Edit Check
The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.
– Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 23:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
To note; "it has given me some ideas for my own idealised funerary monument" [2] is one of the funniest and driest comments have seen anywhere in years. I nearly choked laughing :) Ceoil ( talk) 18:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Just to give appreciation for your insightful and though-provoking review of the Tomb of Philippe Pot. A difficult FAC on the prose side, but your content review was most rewarding, esp wgt to material and the colour scheme. Fwiw, going the PR-> GA route next time so not so much glaring grammar errors. Anyway best as usual. Ceoil ( talk) 16:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Just as a note, as with a few times before, am relying on series of pics you took and uploaded to commons - without them would have bothered to expanded Tomb of the Black Prince. Yeah another tomb; a shrink might say I'm also thinking for what would be the most magnificent celebration of my eventual demise. <shrug> as the kids might say. Ceoil ( talk) 22:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there! I see we were both adding categories to Lorenzo Aillapán at the same time, and you made five edits using HotCat in a row. In case you're not aware, you can do it all in one edit: see Wikipedia:HotCat#Making more than one category change. Happy editing! GoingBatty ( talk) 22:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Fulla (doll has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 3 § Fulla (doll until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 21:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Keiko (orca has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Keiko (orca until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 06:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect HMS Ocean (L12 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § HMS Ocean (L12 until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 07:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Pocahontas (1995 film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Pocahontas (1995 film until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 20:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Vulcan (mythology has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Vulcan (mythology until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 21:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to support your proposal, but wikimedia legal has made it clear that "see deleted" has special issues. So that alone may tank your proposal.
If you remove that part (or split it to a separate proposal) I'd be happy to support : ) - jc37 08:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Happy bureaucratship anniversary! Hi WereSpielChequers! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for bureaucratship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 01:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC) |
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:
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) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I found your account on the "recently active administrators" list; I hope it's OK to ask this here. Could you opine on whether 1.) the article British possession is appropriately sourced and cited and 2.) whether links should exist to the article. A dispute has arisen over whether links to the article should exist in other articles. I created and wrote most of the article. Another editor, Wee Curry Monster ( talk · contribs) doesn't like the article and has sought to delete it by various means, while also objecting to my addition relevant links from other articles, claiming that I had added them inappropriately. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10],
The editor was uncollegial in the AfD: "It seems a lot of comments are made in ignorance of what the term actually means". Having failed to have the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British possession, the editor again resorted to incivility and to incivility by ill-considered accusations of impropriety: "I suggest you grow up and learn to deal with criticism. Your link is inappropriate, you simply spammed that wlink profligately and as I've pointed out to you it violates WP:OVERLINKING" [11].
On the editor's talk page [12], [13], @ Largoplazo, @ W.andrea, and @ Oblivy all explained that the editor's removals were unjustified and their accusations inappropriate:
The editor remained unrepentant and continues to crusade against links to the article, and against the whole article itself, promising "I will get round to nominating for deletion again shortly" [14]. A discussion at Talk:British possession#Removing a lot of links to this article proved fruitless, despite the efforts of W.andrea and Oblivy. The editor even added a "citation needed" to an already well-cited paragraph, apparently not taking any account of the existing citations or their content and again repeating that "no such this recte, thing] as British possession status". [15]
Who is right? If, in contradiction of reliable sources, an editor believes that a given article's topic does not exist (" a common phrase with no real meaning"), is it appropriate for that editor to seek the removal of links to that article if the editor cannot secure consensus deletion of the article? In the last example, the editor twice removed the link to British possession from the article Australia Act 1986, where the continued status of Australia as a British possession is quoted from the words of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Harry Gibbs, and unambiguously refers to the topic of the article British possession. Nevertheless, the objecting editor refuses to justify their actions on Talk:Australia Act 1986#Link to British possession article. What can be done? The wisest fool in Christendom ( talk) 21:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
It does appear to be the case there was, putting it nicely, some overexuberant linking., the accusation I'd made it an orphan easily refuted by reference to the WP:WLH tool. This has already been taken up on the talk page. W C M email 07:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There doesn’t seem to be any agreement with what to do with this article, and the discussion has descended into name calling and personal attacks, so I think it’s best to draw a line under it.As I've noted elsewhere a lot of non-policy based arguments descended into some really bizarre commentary, including editors weren't prepared to share their sources for fear editors weren't legally qualified to understand them. There was a lot of very angry comments that I found bizarre in an AfD. I do intend to re-nominate for AfD but was holding off to allow for the editors who defended the article to make something of it. In 5 months they've done nothing, which to my mind speaks volumes.
I've noticed the "Re-review this revision" button on this BLP, but it seems that neither the "accept revision" nor the "unaccept revision" buttons are functioning properly. What could be causing this issue? — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 17:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
Happy First Edit Day! Hi WereSpielChequers! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
I was looking through the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_211#Advertising_sister_projects and wondered if I could troubled you with some questions about your comment there 'm not against adding relevant links to our sister projects at the end of articles, but at the top? I think the only time we should do that is where the Wikipedia article is a disambiguation page for a word that has a wiktionary definition.
I think we're aligned on links at the bottom of articles, but I wanted to know if you had more to say about your suspicion of adding links at the top. An example that comes to mind is for public domain texts like
Moby Dick. At the bottom of the page, it links to wikisource, saying the full text is available, but maybe that would be useful at the top instead? Basically, if someone is looking up the encyclopedia article on a book, I'd bet they're more likely than most to be interested in the full text (as opposed to say, photos on commons), and putting that first rather than the end makes it more accessible. Thoughts? —
Wug·
a·po·des 20:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
hello, @ WereSpielChequers. please add missing information in Yadava article.
Historians such as P. M. Chandorkar, using both literary and epigraphic sources has argued that the modern Ahirs should be identified with the Yadavas of the classical Sanskrit texts. [1]
In the Mahabharata it is mentioned that when the Yadavas (though belonging to the Abhira group) abandoned Dvaraka and Gujarat after the death of Krishna and retreated northwards under Arjuna's leadership, they were attacked and broken up by the rude Abhiras of Rajputana. They were also mentioned as warriors in support of Duryodhana [2] and Kauravas and in the Mahabharata, Abhira, Gopa, Gopal and Yadavas are all synonyms. [3] They defeated the hero of the Kurukshetra War (Arjuna), and spared him when he disclosed the identity of the members of the family of Krishna. [4] 2409:4085:9C83:4CC8:0:0:8109:D02 ( talk) 22:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
In the Mahabharata, Abhir, Gopa, Gopal and Yadavas are all synonyms.
Home | Bling | Content | Userboxen | Editcount | Talk | Guestbook |
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this user asks you to take precautions:
1. Maintain social distancing by starting new posts in new sections, to avoid contaminating other users. 2. Follow the one-way system by putting new posts at the bottom. 3. Sign your comments to facilitate contact tracing. |
Saw that on my watchlist and wondered what the tarnation does that mean? Looked at the diff and laughed. Well done. It is nice to laugh for a change amongst all the vandalism entries on the watchlist. Bgwhite ( talk) 07:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rich_Farmbrough/British_places_with_coord_and_no_pic
Note: that this may include non-place entities, e.g. people in the category tree that have burial coordinates. But then there may well be a nice photo of their tomb/grave/crypt.
If you let me know any items without coords or with images, improvement may be possible.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC).
Hello WereSpielChequers! At our
earlier discussion at
WT:Autopatrolled you said "Many people get nominated or are nominated for this user right, and occasionally when we have a list I and others trawl through the list of prolific article creators and appoint suitable ones as autopatrollers."
Well, I'm starting to parse through the data to try to figure out how many editors there are with 20-50 (non-redirect) articles created (which I'm having to do manually via
Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count!) But what I'm finding alarming is the number of (still active) editors that have 50-100 (non-redirect) articles created and who don't have "Autopatrolled" rights! So, I'm thinking that I'd like to nominate some of these for Autopatrolled rights – How do I do that? Thanks in advance! --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 20:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The WMF put out some extremely misleading statements. Some of your comments in the Village Pump discussion were incorrect (not your fault).
I spoke with the Flow project manager [1]. They have not diminished work on Flow, they are working full speed ahead on specific features for Flow. When the WMF says that their new work is going to be driven by the needs of the Community, they mean they decided what they wanted to give us, then they did research interviews with a couple of editors, then they shoehorned those responses to fit what they wanted to build. I spoke to one of the people they interviewed - the WMF staff interviewing him didn't even know the Community had already built the functionality they are working on. Specifically they are building a replacement for scripts like Twinkle, except their version won't work on existing pages. The Flow team is going full speed ahead, building a project that largely duplicates functionality we already built, and they are deliberately designing it so it won't work unless we convert every goddamn page on Wikipedia into Flow chatboards. Oh.... and it doesn't work unless you switch to Visual Editor too.
In the last election for WMF board of directors, all three elected candidates ran on a platform that Flow could not be deployed if the community didn't want it. So.... the WMF is restricting new development and support to Flow. If we want any new features, if we want any continuing support, we have to take Flow first. There's not much chance of the WMF willingly picking up the autosign project. They want our editor *gone*. Alsee ( talk) 19:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It's possible you may vaguely remember me. We had a fair bit of contact several years ago, but I became pretty disillusioned by certain aspects of the whole project (specifically with regard to fair use images) and I have been on pretty substantial wiki-break. Now I'm willingly getting pulled back in to things and I'm once again finding everything for the most part interesting, challenging and enjoyable.
Anyway, I was wondering if you might have any observations you might share about how editing culture has changed since 2011. There are a few things I have noticed that are at least as bad, and in some ways worse, than they were before:
I suppose a lot of these things could have been written in 2011. Maybe not much has changed. Certainly the ongoing trend away from the "optimistic content creators" of 2006 towards the "pessimistic gatekeepers" who will eventually control everything is very noticeable when you take a few years away.
Cheers,
Thparkth ( talk) 15:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I know and have been following Wikipedia articles for many years though I never knew how to write or edit one until a few months ago. I am from India and yes, people are getting more involved about from where and how all that information is coming. I am new writer and I have made a few edits; making edits is easier now due to visual formatting. It's very helpful.
Dishita Bhowmik ( talk) 17:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Thought I would move this discussion into it's own section, hope that's OK.
I could definitely update Wikipedia:Database_reports/Editors_eligible_for_Autopatrol_privilege but that page "belongs" to the Database Reports project and Community Tech Bot is updating it with its slightly-less-useful information twice each month. I suspect it is theoretically possible to have my script run through that mechanism, but I haven't worked in that environment before and there would likely be a learning curve involved. Going that way may end up being dependent on the same overworked volunteers who haven't yet been able to action your request to modify the current report.
It would be much, much easier to put my data somewhere else. Any thoughts?
Finally I have updated User:Thparkth/autopatroltest with data from December 18th.
Cheers,
Thparkth ( talk) 22:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I have forgotten how I created the old list, but I found a note on Meta from you asking for a list split by {{
Infobox UK place}}
vs everything else.
As I remarked I am still severely restricted in what I am permitted to do, so the list(s) will have to be placed in my user space, from where they can be copied, moved or transcluded.
I have been tussling with a huge (somewhat related) issue of producing accurate region codes for some 100k+ articles, success rate is now about 87-88% (compared with much less than 50% before I started) but of course the last 20% is going to be 80% of the work.
Nonetheless the first list should be uploaded soon. The rest will have to go on my todo list for now.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 03:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC).
native tongue as tool | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 432 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Four years now! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
... and five! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
... and six! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
... and seven! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
It's been a while but the all-singing, all-dancing, new version of the report code is now working and its first results are on the report page. I would be grateful if you would let me know about any problems you identify in the output.
Thanks for setting me along this road by the way - this kind of work is a lot of fun for me, and I now have all the access required to fix, modify, and create new reports without undue delay. Thparkth ( talk) 23:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
You've fixed a lot of my shoddy reduplicative errors ("the the") etc recently and I appreciate it a lot. › Mortee talk 21:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I noticed that you've removed the second the in "the German adaption of the The Best Singers series.", and that you've performed a large number of similar edits with AWB. I don't think this is correct, however, as the final the is part of a proper noun which forms a separate syntactic unit, so the preceding article is still necessary, in my understanding - although a rewording of the sentence would most likely be preferable, as the repetition of the is obviously awkward. If there is an obscure grammatical rule permitting omission of the article, I would be pleased to read it, but otherwise I'd request that you be more careful or stop using AWB for this particular change, and go through the previous such edits again. Thanks. Kranix ( talk | contribs) 18:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I saw the edit you made beenath->beneath. This kind of edits can be easily done using the tool in the title. Let me know if you need any help setting it up. Uziel302 ( talk) 15:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
importScript('User:Uziel302/typo.js');
to your
User:WereSpielChequers/common.js. This tool adds simple buttons to the lis: replace, remove, no much to learn. If after 5 minutes you don't like it, you can revert the edit on you common.js. No need to divide work as every checked typo should be removed from the list. The typos are sorted alphabetically so you can see those who happen couple of time, these are the top reccurring ones:unveilled - 9 receving - 9 awll - 8 teching - 7 coveres - 7 appearanced - 7 adiation - 7 sceni - 6 unnotated - 6 predomnantly - 6 featureed - 6
Thanks again, Uziel302 ( talk) 05:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I made: Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click/list by occurrence. Uziel302 ( talk) 18:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you could try using the script for fixing and dismissing typos of Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click and give some feedback. Thanks. Uziel302 ( talk) 17:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Just updated the list on User:Uziel302/sandbox to current dump. Uziel302 ( talk) 18:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
It is not immediately clear whether it's vandalism or good faith editing, but I am required by policy to assume the latter in the absence of evidence to the contrary. What makes it so difficult to assume good faith is that you have edited over 200 articles contributed to by well in excess of that number of editors and yet you assume that you are right and therefore every one else must be wrong. You have been industriously changing "dependant" in all those articles to "dependent". "dependant" is the correct spelling of the word (see [ here]). "dependent" seems to be creeping in as a alternate spelling (historically: it is an olde English spelling often still used by the legal profession). There was no reason to change the spelling per WP:NOTBROKEN.
On the subject of plurals, an apostrophe is not used when pluralising a word. However: English, as ever, has its exceptions and decades is one of those exceptions. Thus referring to the 1970's as a decade is correctly apostrophised. Another good (topical) example would be, "The United Kingdom will be leaving Europe on the 31st of October, no if's or but's". - 86.130.28.61 ( talk) 12:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, an
old edit, but your script broke a citation template by corrupting its |url=
value. If you have not already fixed it, please do so.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, what? You'll have to explain that one to me. Echetus Xe 13:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
This gave me a chuckle. Thanks for the help! Cheers! --
Engineerchange (
talk) 14:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi - this from my talk:
There are still only 11 in the commons cat - I think he had taken some before, but not uploaded them, Best, Johnbod ( talk) 05:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter
This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:
Talk pages project
The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.
It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.
An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.
New Project: Edit Check
The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.
– Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 23:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
To note; "it has given me some ideas for my own idealised funerary monument" [2] is one of the funniest and driest comments have seen anywhere in years. I nearly choked laughing :) Ceoil ( talk) 18:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Just to give appreciation for your insightful and though-provoking review of the Tomb of Philippe Pot. A difficult FAC on the prose side, but your content review was most rewarding, esp wgt to material and the colour scheme. Fwiw, going the PR-> GA route next time so not so much glaring grammar errors. Anyway best as usual. Ceoil ( talk) 16:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Just as a note, as with a few times before, am relying on series of pics you took and uploaded to commons - without them would have bothered to expanded Tomb of the Black Prince. Yeah another tomb; a shrink might say I'm also thinking for what would be the most magnificent celebration of my eventual demise. <shrug> as the kids might say. Ceoil ( talk) 22:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there! I see we were both adding categories to Lorenzo Aillapán at the same time, and you made five edits using HotCat in a row. In case you're not aware, you can do it all in one edit: see Wikipedia:HotCat#Making more than one category change. Happy editing! GoingBatty ( talk) 22:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Fulla (doll has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 3 § Fulla (doll until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 21:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Keiko (orca has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Keiko (orca until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 06:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect HMS Ocean (L12 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § HMS Ocean (L12 until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 07:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Pocahontas (1995 film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Pocahontas (1995 film until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 20:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Vulcan (mythology has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Vulcan (mythology until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 21:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to support your proposal, but wikimedia legal has made it clear that "see deleted" has special issues. So that alone may tank your proposal.
If you remove that part (or split it to a separate proposal) I'd be happy to support : ) - jc37 08:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Happy bureaucratship anniversary! Hi WereSpielChequers! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for bureaucratship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 01:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC) |
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:
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) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I found your account on the "recently active administrators" list; I hope it's OK to ask this here. Could you opine on whether 1.) the article British possession is appropriately sourced and cited and 2.) whether links should exist to the article. A dispute has arisen over whether links to the article should exist in other articles. I created and wrote most of the article. Another editor, Wee Curry Monster ( talk · contribs) doesn't like the article and has sought to delete it by various means, while also objecting to my addition relevant links from other articles, claiming that I had added them inappropriately. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10],
The editor was uncollegial in the AfD: "It seems a lot of comments are made in ignorance of what the term actually means". Having failed to have the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British possession, the editor again resorted to incivility and to incivility by ill-considered accusations of impropriety: "I suggest you grow up and learn to deal with criticism. Your link is inappropriate, you simply spammed that wlink profligately and as I've pointed out to you it violates WP:OVERLINKING" [11].
On the editor's talk page [12], [13], @ Largoplazo, @ W.andrea, and @ Oblivy all explained that the editor's removals were unjustified and their accusations inappropriate:
The editor remained unrepentant and continues to crusade against links to the article, and against the whole article itself, promising "I will get round to nominating for deletion again shortly" [14]. A discussion at Talk:British possession#Removing a lot of links to this article proved fruitless, despite the efforts of W.andrea and Oblivy. The editor even added a "citation needed" to an already well-cited paragraph, apparently not taking any account of the existing citations or their content and again repeating that "no such this recte, thing] as British possession status". [15]
Who is right? If, in contradiction of reliable sources, an editor believes that a given article's topic does not exist (" a common phrase with no real meaning"), is it appropriate for that editor to seek the removal of links to that article if the editor cannot secure consensus deletion of the article? In the last example, the editor twice removed the link to British possession from the article Australia Act 1986, where the continued status of Australia as a British possession is quoted from the words of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Harry Gibbs, and unambiguously refers to the topic of the article British possession. Nevertheless, the objecting editor refuses to justify their actions on Talk:Australia Act 1986#Link to British possession article. What can be done? The wisest fool in Christendom ( talk) 21:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
It does appear to be the case there was, putting it nicely, some overexuberant linking., the accusation I'd made it an orphan easily refuted by reference to the WP:WLH tool. This has already been taken up on the talk page. W C M email 07:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There doesn’t seem to be any agreement with what to do with this article, and the discussion has descended into name calling and personal attacks, so I think it’s best to draw a line under it.As I've noted elsewhere a lot of non-policy based arguments descended into some really bizarre commentary, including editors weren't prepared to share their sources for fear editors weren't legally qualified to understand them. There was a lot of very angry comments that I found bizarre in an AfD. I do intend to re-nominate for AfD but was holding off to allow for the editors who defended the article to make something of it. In 5 months they've done nothing, which to my mind speaks volumes.
I've noticed the "Re-review this revision" button on this BLP, but it seems that neither the "accept revision" nor the "unaccept revision" buttons are functioning properly. What could be causing this issue? — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 17:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
Happy First Edit Day! Hi WereSpielChequers! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
I was looking through the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_211#Advertising_sister_projects and wondered if I could troubled you with some questions about your comment there 'm not against adding relevant links to our sister projects at the end of articles, but at the top? I think the only time we should do that is where the Wikipedia article is a disambiguation page for a word that has a wiktionary definition.
I think we're aligned on links at the bottom of articles, but I wanted to know if you had more to say about your suspicion of adding links at the top. An example that comes to mind is for public domain texts like
Moby Dick. At the bottom of the page, it links to wikisource, saying the full text is available, but maybe that would be useful at the top instead? Basically, if someone is looking up the encyclopedia article on a book, I'd bet they're more likely than most to be interested in the full text (as opposed to say, photos on commons), and putting that first rather than the end makes it more accessible. Thoughts? —
Wug·
a·po·des 20:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
hello, @ WereSpielChequers. please add missing information in Yadava article.
Historians such as P. M. Chandorkar, using both literary and epigraphic sources has argued that the modern Ahirs should be identified with the Yadavas of the classical Sanskrit texts. [1]
In the Mahabharata it is mentioned that when the Yadavas (though belonging to the Abhira group) abandoned Dvaraka and Gujarat after the death of Krishna and retreated northwards under Arjuna's leadership, they were attacked and broken up by the rude Abhiras of Rajputana. They were also mentioned as warriors in support of Duryodhana [2] and Kauravas and in the Mahabharata, Abhira, Gopa, Gopal and Yadavas are all synonyms. [3] They defeated the hero of the Kurukshetra War (Arjuna), and spared him when he disclosed the identity of the members of the family of Krishna. [4] 2409:4085:9C83:4CC8:0:0:8109:D02 ( talk) 22:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
In the Mahabharata, Abhir, Gopa, Gopal and Yadavas are all synonyms.