User talk:Anomie

This user's talk page has archives:

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

RfC format

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#RFC: Sever WP:MASSCREATE from WP:BOTPOL: note as per Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Statement should be neutral and brief, RfCs should start with a short, neutral statement ending with a timestamp, so Legobot can copy it to the various lists of RfCs. isaacl (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to keep that in mind for the future, but I'd rather not go back and reformat it now. Is there another option to make Legobot happy? Anomie⚔ 02:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I inserted a datestamp after the question, hopefully that's good enough. Anomie⚔ 02:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Legobot tries to copy everything up to the first timestamp. I don't remember the exact maximum number of characters it will copy, but if it's longer than that, another editor such as Redrose64 might come along and decide on a short summary for you. So my suggestion is to start with a brief sentence or two with a following timestamp, so you can control what editors who use the lists and the notification service will see. isaacl (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

And how would Redrose64 do that? In some undocumented but useful manner, or by reformatting the RFC itself in a manner that I'd think breaks the flow of it? Anomie⚔ 03:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Without going back to look through their contributions, I believe by doing something like copying your question to the top of the RfC and adding a timestamp at the end. But the point is doing it yourself will forestall getting into a dispute with what someone else does (since even the RfC introductory text is subject to consensus agreement, with English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions). isaacl (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The statement - as amended here - is briefer, but it's still not neutral: after removal of the <strong>...</strong> tags, the third paragraph (beginning "Personally I'm ...") is the most obvious. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I guessed right, the answer was "break the actual RFC to make the bot-list look slightly nicer". Sigh. Anomie⚔ 23:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"About your motivations"

([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)

Possible cleanup in your monobook.js

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

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

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)