User talk:Butlerblog
 | Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:
|
Replacing URLs with the template Bare URL inline
It seems you're unintentionally replacing URLs with the {{Bare URL inline}} template, e.g. special:diff/1241468498 2001:999:404:F24E:AC74:39F1:9D4A:1986 (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes - thanks for catching that! Seems there was a change in the script yesterday that introduced a bug. I can clean it up based on the entries that are in the log. ButlerBlog (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I rolled back edits on the articles that were affected by the bug, debugged the AWB regex, and reran on the affected articles to reapply the {{Bare URL inline}} tag (this time, the URL is included). Things should be OK now going forward. ButlerBlog (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Your removal of Wikiproject Discrimination from pages
I'd classify the Wikiproject as semi-active not completely inactive. It was only shifted from "active" all the way to "inactive" in July, but there still is some activity on the talk page, even since then, so I re-marked it as "semi-active" instead (after seeing your removal of the template from one of the articles I have starred. Could you undo your removal of the Wikiprojects from the article talk pages you removed it from? Raladic (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Raladic: This was a case where there was a particular user mass adding articles to the project (and other projects). They were neither a participant in the project, nor did they have a good handle on article assessment (among other issues). If you're a participant (and or interested in the project) and you think that a particular article is of interest to the project, by all means, add it back in. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Let me add to that - I didn't include that in the edit summary as I did not see it as necessary to draw negative attention to the editor involved. So the edit summary I limited to identifying the non-contentious reason. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah ok, thanks for that extra context, makes sense. I'll see if there a particular article I care about that I feel like could keep it. Happy editing :) Raladic (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Let me add to that - I didn't include that in the edit summary as I did not see it as necessary to draw negative attention to the editor involved. So the edit summary I limited to identifying the non-contentious reason. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Serpent seed, Cain's descendants
I cited the book of Genesis as a source for the fact that Cain has no descendants living amongst humanity today, which is the entire theory the article is about. The reason the book of Genesis is a valid source for this is because the entire story of Cain's life is based purely on the book of Genesis, therefore since the same book less than 2 chapters later is clear about the fact that all of Cain's descendants were wiped out in the great flood its a valid source for the fact the entire theory is contradicted by the very book of Genesis Cain's life and existence is based on. The actual theory that humanity is divided into real humans and those who are descended from a half human half snake is itself a crackpot idea. But the entire purpose of this theory that there is a race of half human half snakes living among us is so that ignorant idiots can declare that Jews or Blacks or whoever else they hate is not actually human. So the lead is the proper place for readers to understand from the start that the theory is contradicted by the very book it is based on and is therefore factually false. The only additional citation that may be in order would be to provide the verse and chapter citation for the book of Genesis, however one can assume that the average reader is aware of the biblical story of the great flood. L69 (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @L69: Please keep things in one place - if you reply on your talk page, then keep it there. If you reply on my talk page, that's fine, too. But only do one or the other. I responded to this and your own talk page reply at your talk page. Thanks. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 September 2024
- News and notes: WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked
- In the media: AI is not playing games anymore. Is Wikipedia ready?
- News from the WMF: Meet the 12 candidates running in the WMF Board of Trustees election
- Wikimania: A month after Wikimania 2024
- Serendipity: What it's like to be Wikimedian of the Year
- Traffic report: After the gold rush