User talk:Equazcion/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Invitation to tech chats

Hi! I saw that you're interested in the software side of Wikimedia, and I wanted to invite you to watch and participate in our live tech chats, which include video streaming. The next one is next week and you'll be able to watch, live, via screensharing, as a developer fixes a bug, including investigation, a git commit, getting it reviewed and merged, and closing the Bugzilla ticket.

Hope this is of interest! Best wishes, Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Choke-out, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dilate (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) 10:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yuletide greetings!

Hoping you, and your family and friends only the best for this holiday season! Be well and be safe!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Your custom preset edit summary script

I did see that you are retired, but it looks like you are occasionally around, so hopefully you'll see this.

I stumbled across your script looking for a way to use preset edit summaries. I almost gave up when all I could find was a gadget when my wiki doesn't have gadgets, but then I learned gadgets are just a glorified common.js/vector.js with checkboxes, and ended up finding the script the gadget uses, leading me to your revised script.

I thought the maximum of 20 summaries was a little small since I wanted to put common summaries as well as a complete list of rule link summaries, so using my limited js knowledge and some internet help, I managed to revise the script to use theoretically infinite summaries by substituting the if typeof list with a loop and just putting all the summaries into one variable array.

You can see my version here. Hope you like it. --Kanegasi ☺C 01:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea. The only thing is, I generally shy away from making people set an array for script settings -- before I knew much about scripting, I always found those confusing. When people need to set things I like to assume they're as uncomfortable as possible with script code :) and therefore keep it as simple as possible, generally A = B. Your implementation is definitely an improvement in the script's capabilities though. You could consider adding your version at WP:US so people have the option for unlimited presets. Nice work. Equazcion (talk) 20:57, 20 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Migrating references

Hi, Equazcion. That's sorry that you have retired but one day we all will take this step. However, from my own experience I may say that sometimes editors return and I hope it will happen also to you. However, if you still around I would like to ask your help. I knew that you have used some automatic tool to migrate references from the body text into the references section. Would it possible that you will do this for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. That article has 400+ references and it is really very hard to edit the body text in its current stage. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

All done, hopefully without errors :) Equazcion (talk) 20:50, 20 Jan 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Beagel (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Equazcion. Do you think you could help also with the following articles:

This is a quite big list but maybe you could take a care of this. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I doubt I'll be able to get to all this any time soon. The tool I use is described at User:PleaseStand/References_ segregator#Converting footnotes to list-defined_.28LDR.29_format, if you or someone else would like to try using it. Equazcion (talk) 22:08, 9 Mar 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Beagel (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven

Check out the Teahouse Easter Egg Badge, awarded for helpful suggestions about improving the Teahouse.
Check out the Teahouse Genie Badge, awarded for solving issues on the Teahouse Wishlist.

Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here

Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

user script

hi, I saw that you created a new page for user-scripts. I have tested my script (User:Subh83/JavaScriptTools/RightclickMenus) on vector skin, and it works fine. I have thus marked it with a '*'. Can I move it to the new page? - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 20:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You can add your script to the new list at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts, yes. Just leave it in the old list as well. Equazcion (talk) 20:58, 9 Feb 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven (special Birthday recap)

A celebratory cupcake from the Teahouse Birthday Badge

It's been a full year since the Teahouse opened, and as we're reflecting on what's been accomplished, we wanted to celebrate with you.

Teahouse guests and hosts are sharing their stories in a new blog post about the project.

1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:

Metric Control group Teahouse group Contrast
Average retention (weeks with at least 1 edit) 5.02 weeks 8.57 weeks 1.7x retention
Average number of articles edited 58.7 articles 116.9 edits 2.0x articles edited
Average talk page edits 36.5 edits 85.6 edits 2.4x talk page edits
Average article space edits 129.6 edits 360.4 edits 2.8x article edits
Average total edits (all namespaces) 182.1 edits 532.4 edits 2.9x total edits

Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper

Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.

Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)

-- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 20:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To add or remove yourself for receiving future newsletters, please update the list here

Active watchers script

User:Equazcion/ActiveWatchers.js doesn't seem to be working for me any longer. Is it just me, or has it stopped working for everyone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting mediation on the subject of User:Launchballer's signature.

Requesting mediation on the subject of User:Launchballer's signature. I see you've had discussions with this user before, and since the user informed me that he had previous issues and my issue was never brought up then, I have decided to research this. I've so far found you have had issues there before, and would like you to help mediate this to make sure the user understands there is no "grandfathering" as it were of signatures. You may find the current discussion here. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it's taking so long to get around to this, but I'd like to thank you for your input on the matter. Technical 13 (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Backwatch.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 01:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for direction at top of fringe theories noticeboard

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you for putting in the notice last year asking editors to inform anyone if they were talking about them at WP:FTN. I tried to do something similar earlier and was attacked quite viciously but somehow you managed it without all the screaming, and having looked there a few times since I think it has really helped the atmosphere. Dmcq (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :) Equazcion (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia toolbar for FireFox

Hello Equazcion! I noticed that you made a toolbar for FireFox once upon a time, and was wondering if updates and feature requests were possible. Mainly, I would like to request a feature update so that it will work with the new system of FireFox (currently version 20.0.1). If you have no interest in this, I have "some" JavaScript experience (it's still on my list of classes to complete), some PHP (also on my list), I've done HTML/CSS, and I'm taking my XML final this week, and I would love to take over maintenance and such for this toolbar. I would likely need a few pointers on where to start and a "mentor" to help point me in the right direction when I get stuck (which may happen fairly often at first until I become familiar), and would like to know if you might be interested in that as well. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

That toolbar turned out to be a lot more work than it was worth, just to keep its rather simple functions working with every new Firefox update, let alone adding new features. I think it had value but I was never able to get any help from the Wikipedia community, even after it turned out to be pretty popular -- that plus the Firefox extension documentation is sorta spotty.
I'd welcome others taking over, but if you need to be mentored I'm sadly pretty useless in that department now. I'm good with Javascript but the extension also relies on XUL, which I learned just enough of to program the toolbar, and I don't remember any of it anymore.
If you download the toolbar and decompress it as a ZIP file, you can see the source files. If you can manage to update it for Firefox 20, I'd add you as a developer at the Mozilla page.
Note that Firefox now has an extension "API", which can be used as an alternative to the more complex XUL, and it might be worth it to just re-program the entire toolbar from the ground up that way. The API isn't as powerful as XUL but the toolbar wasn't doing anything so complex, so I have a feeling the API would be enough.
Anyway that's what I know. If you want to give it a shot feel free. Equazcion (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Equazcion/TeahouseRespond.js

Hey! Fancy bumping into you again about something coding related! I've found a bug in this script and had some other questions about the script as well. First, the bug... After A discussion with Revent I can confirm that using this script produces some undesired edit summaries when the user has "Auto-number headings" also enabled from Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Now, my other questions... Why was this script designed to prevent users from right clicking? I ask because I'm a horrible speller normally, and this disables access to my spell checker to fix my spelling. Would there be any way to add a "live preview" style panel above the textarea to allow people to confirm that they typed out the links correctly or that they selected the right template (usually something small like checkY,  Working,  Works for me,  Done or one of the {{Tl}} demonstrations)? Thanks for your time! Technical 13 (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I only added the routine that lets users respond using the same pretty box as they can use to ask new questions -- a lot of the code I used was just copied and modified from that original "ask" script. I think it was User:Writ Keeper who came up with that original "ask" code I used/modified -- but I'm not certain. You can also post to the talk of MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js, where the live Teahouse code lives. I don't know offhand what would be causing a conflict with another script, as I'm not all that familiar with the teahouse code anymore, and have never laid eyes on that numbering gadget. I don't remember explicitly adding anything that would've suppressed right-clicks, but it's possible that the original code I copied had something like that -- but FYI, right-click menus seem to work for me at the Teahouse within both the "ask" and "respond" boxes (in the latest Chrome and Firefox versions at least). Hope that helps :) Oh and as for the suggested feature additions, those seem feasible but I'm out of the game myself now, so you'd have to suggest that somewhere else. Equazcion (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't me, either, it was someone at the Foundation, back when the Teahouse was a Foundation initiative. I'd guess Werdna or Kaldari. Like I said before, I don't see anything in the code that would disable right-clicking, so the cause for that is likely elsewhere. If you could think of a way to do a live preview like that, then contact the visual editor/Parsoid team stat. :) The only thing I can think of off-hand would be making an API parse call for each keystroke, which would be ridiculously and unacceptably inefficient. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
A live preview box could be primarily client-side, and just make an API call when a user closes a link or template with "]]", "}}", etc. User:ערן/autocomplete.js does something similar already so there may be clues there. Just a thought :) Equazcion (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
It could, yeah; I did think of something like that. But that model breaks down a bit when nonlinear typing is taken into account: what happens if a user types out a wikilink, changes their mind, and goes back and changes the pipe? Or the linked article? Both should change the output of the live preview without using any of the key symbols (of which there are many, including singlequotes). A semi-live preview, with a button that refreshes the preview, might be a better compromise. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure nonlinear typing could be handled similarly -- maybe checking whether typing is occurring within a bracket set, then detecting when the user clicks/cursor moves outside the bracket set, to trigger an API call. There are lots of possibilities. I think it could be done; it'd just require time to develop with some trial and error, which I unfortunately don't have the time for these days. But a "check my links" or "preview" button is certainly a simpler possibility. The suggestion should be posted someplace more central than my talk page so that someone who might be interested can get wind of it. Maybe a Bugzilla request too? Equazcion (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Semi-live like what WP:TW does would be fine by me. I'm not picky, just brainstorming ways to make it easier. I'm not sure User:Werdna is active anymore but I know I've seen stuff from User:Kaldari recently on bugzilla. I'll see if I can get in contact with them. Thanks Equazcion. :) Technical 13 (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neijing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese (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) 23:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Script question

Greetings Equazcion, I hope you don't mind but I had a question about a script you wrote. I tried to create a tab that would show if the article had a link on another wiki. I was starting with WikiSpecies here but I would like to do it with others as well. At least a couple others anyway (like Simple, Commons and Wiktionary). I think I am fairly close but I just can't quite get it to work. Would you have any advise as to what I am doing wrong? Thanks in advance for the help. Kumioko (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

See User:Equazcion/test.js. I copied your script there and added my corrections. The comments that start with " // ** " should explain what was wrong with yours. You were indeed very close, you just didn't define a tab to clone (you need to identify a tab that already exists on the page via jquery, which .clone() then copies, before doing anything else; see the line I added at the top). Also the wikispecies URL for the tab's link wasn't right. You would've probably been able to fix the URL yourself once you got the tab to show up but I put in a basic URL for now. You can tweak it to be compatible with other projects/languages etc. Equazcion (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Awesome thanks for the help. Kumioko (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem :) PS. I realized changing the tab red isn't working though. The ajax URL needed correcting, but even after doing that it still doesn't seem to work. I made a couple more notes in the test.js script. Hopefully you can figure it out if you play with it. Good luck. Equazcion (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate all the help. Not very good at it yet. I'll keep playing with it. Kumioko (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Adapting Teahouse Question Button for The Wikipedia Adventure

Hey Equazcion! I know you're no longer active, but I'm posting here in case you check in occasionally.

I heard you helped Jonathan Morgan with a Teahouse discussion feature which used the API. I'm trying to adapt the Teahouse Question Gadget, which takes input from a question form and automatically edits that content onto the Teahouse Questions Page. It bypasses the edit screen and the need to click Save by using the API. The Gadget is defined here: EN:MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js

I'd like to create a very similar functionality for The Wikipedia Adventure. I want to make a button (or url) that automatically edits the game player's talkspace with a preloaded template, also using the API. It's supposed to feel like they received a message from another user, when in fact they are just sending the message to themselves, and it will simply add preloaded content simulating an interaction; the need to use the API is so it maintains that appearance of actually receiving a message from someone else.

If you have any tips on how to do this, I'd love to hear them. Hope you're well, Ocaasi t | c 16:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to adding content to another page without user input you're probably better off using something server-side, ie. a bot. It should be feasible with a js script though. I made User:Equazcion/post-to-talk.js, (add importScript('User:Equazcion/post-to-talk.js'); to test), intended to work on User:Equazcion/test. It doesn't work yet, but might help get you started. I'm pretty sure this is the right methodology even if the code needs a bit of debugging, as I don't completely remember what I'm doing when it comes to mediawiki's js and api. User:Writ Keeper might be able to help iron it out. Note that right now the script is supposed to grab hold of the first "button" on any page that has one, which you'll need to tweak so there are no unintended effects when people click buttons on other pages. Equazcion (talk) 18:18, 16 Jun 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, it's a bit more work than needs to be done; I've posted a similar thing in Ocaasi's thread at my talk page. I don't use any mediawiki functions for the actual get/post requests; instead, I go with jQuery's functions, retrieving the url for the api.php page and passing it in (which looks something like $.post(mw.config.get("wgScriptPath")+"/api.php", {action:"edit", ...});. Also, there's no need to make a separate API call to get the edit token; you can retrieve it directly with the call mw.user.tokens.get("editToken"). Other than that, though, that's generally along the right lines. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I defer to your way since again I'm totally out of practice at MW. Incidentally just as an aside, I basically cannibalized MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js to get my version, which currently gets the edit token separately and doesn't use jQuery's ajax shortcuts. Might be worth it to simplify that code as well. Equazcion (talk) 14:56, 17 Jun 2013 (UTC)
*sigh* Yeah, it's on my list, but the list keeps growing, and my desire to work on reducing is inversely proportional to its size. :/ Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Update User:Equazcion/ContribsTabVector.js with new edit count link?

Hey Equazcion! Wondering if you could change http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name= to http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name= in User:Equazcion/ContribsTabVector.js, since the edit count tool has moved. Thanks much! Theopolisme (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Made the change. :) Equazcion (talk) 08:27, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is needed in this discussion on Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie

Hi. Two editors are advocating for the exclusion of any mention in the Zeitgeist: The Movie article that Peter Joseph, the creator of that film has stated publicly that words attributed to him in a story cited as a source in the article misquoted him, and that he has not distanced himself from the ideas expressed in that film, as that cited source indicates. I have responded to their arguments, but neither of them has responded directly to my counterarguments, but simply repeat the same statements of theirs over and over. Myself and one other editor disagree with them, so two editors are for the material's inclusion, and two are for its exclusion, with no sign of consensus in sight. Can you please offer your viewpoint in the discussion so that we can achieve consensus? Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

this template is only for pages called "village pump"

"this template is only for pages called "village pump"" you retired say.

Who said so? Actually, who made that template? You are trickiung and gamintg the system cooperating whit Kww. -DePiep (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've never communicated with Kww before, as far as I can remember. So no, I'm not gaming the system with him. If you continue to try adding non-Pump pages to the Village Pump header template, Kww and I will not be the only ones to revert you. Everyone will, because what you're doing is wrong. I'm not sure how to explain that to you any clearer so I'll just repeat: The Village Pump template is only for Village Pumps. It's not for just any page that has technical discussions, otherwise there would already be dozens of tabs there. Equazcion (talk) 01:51, 31 Jul 2013 (UTC)
I would have thought that random chance would have made the two of interact more than this over the course of the years.—Kww(talk) 01:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The argument could be made that the improbable level of non-interaction could be evidence of conspirators overcompensating... :) Equazcion (talk) 02:12, 31 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Bring it to the talk page not my user page

Not interested in debating that on my user talk page with you. Would appreciate your not visiting there again but using the article talk page if you want to discuss the article. Stop getting involved in controlling what people say. Collapse your opinion where you overtly get into personality things again with another editor. So, collapse your commentary and stay out of the commentary and opinions especially since you are removing other people from the discussion by collapsing as you call it their comments. That seems unfair and you then seem to be controlling the direction of the issue in a very untoward pointed way. Thanks Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything. I did collapse, but collapsed the entire discussion, not merely one person's comment. I would urge you to let the RfC section be used to gain outside input, rather than use it to restate your own opinions that everyone is already aware of. Anyone can however reply to that input. Do not remove other people's comments. Equazcion (talk) 00:52, 1 Aug 2013 (UTC)

You personalized it in a negative way by bringing up other editors with your opinion. Collapse your comments then also and stay out of it if you want to be seen as fair, otherwise you are unduly manipulating the debate. That is my final comment and my opinion on that issue. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:IRWolfie-‎ mentioned you first -- not by name, but he was referring to your actions when he spoke of possible canvassing violations -- and I simply responded. I do feel what you did was wrong and I'm sorry if you feel expressing as much is personalizing and negative, but I stand by it. Equazcion (talk) 01:14, 1 Aug 2013 (UTC)

Signature....and retirement?

Love the drop shadow on your signature. I have to copy that. ;-)

On another note...are you seriously retired? (Amadscientist)--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 00:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Officially I'm retired yeah. Someone pulled me out briefly to participate in one of the millions of contentious Wikipedia debates that never go anywhere. It led to my planting the seeds of dissidence at VPR. I hope to get back to enjoying my retirement soon. Equazcion (talk) 00:46, 3 Aug 2013 (UTC)
LOL! Screw your retirement. Get to work you bum! (I kid) Seriously, while we don't often agree on issues, you were and can still be a great asset to our community and I am one who hopes you decide to return full time. I don't care about the template....I care about the fact that you have to much to offer to leave, and should you decide to do so, is a great loss to Wikipedia. I don't think I am exaggerating at all.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 01:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
We can agree that my leaving would be a great loss to Wikipedia :) But I've done it anyway, for the reasons you can see at the top of this page. What you're experiencing now is just a momentary lapse in judgment. Equazcion (talk) 01:36, 3 Aug 2013 (UTC)
There's always {{semiretired}} if you prefer to be more accurate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
As a Recovering Wikipedian, I have to be careful. It's a slippery slope. I can't go back to that cold, dark place. I won't. -shudders- Equazcion (talk) 01:47, 5 Aug 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Electronic cigarette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smoking pipe (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) 11:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

E-cig harm evidence

I appreciate what you said about neutrality, but is there any evidence to suggest that e-cigs aren't safer than smoking? I'm not aware of any.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"Verifiability, not truth" is the standard mantra. You could be 100% correct (I have no idea if you are), but it's what we can verify within the bounds of our policies that matters. Equazcion (talk) 02:19, 12 Aug 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, can anyone verify that an actual risk may exist? There have been plenty of studies about the contents of liquid and vapour; they contain far fewer toxins than smoke and at very low level, so anyone saying they may be as harmful as tobacco (i.e. the WHO) is making a claim that needs to be verified. That should be made clear, although I agree it's tricky.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Assuming for the moment that no one can verify a risk exists, making a statement like that is tantamount to SYNTH. What you'd be doing is taking the totality of sources and saying none of them show [something] -- an original claim based on your own overview of the sources. Equazcion (talk) 03:17, 12 Aug 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saints Row IV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hacking (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) 11:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Case

I just met you in the infoboxes case and rubbed my eyes when I saw "retired". I had reason to think about the arguments that I get when I like an infobox, summary "We as the authors ...". Read the talk of The Rite of Spring, help is needed badly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been doing my best to maintain my retiree status and not get drawn back in, especially into typically horrendous Wikipedia debates that by design can't get anywhere sustainable (99% of Wikipedia's article conflicts, see my farewell message in the header). I sometimes fail, but I think here we could be on the verge of creating a new guideline that can make things better long-term. I hope to maybe start creating an RfC at some point, if it seems no one else is doing it (I hope to at least not do it alone), and your list of common arguments against will be helpful there, so thanks for that. If you're asking me to get involved in a particular article I have to decline though for the aforementioned reasons. Equazcion (talk) 21:52, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)
"Making things better" sounds excellent. I would not ask you to get involved in any article, just to look. That featured article got a reputation for an editor causing disruption, so of course he needs to banned. What did he do? He asked why that article didn't have an infobox and dismissed some of the collected arguments. I refused to "vote" then as you will see. We can't just count noses, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Precious

writers strike
Thank you, drummer with a personal edition, for drumming up vigility, editors' pride, global consensus, objection to ownership, for letting me think about a writers strike, - great "retirement", you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

On the compliment scale this is a tough one to live up to, but I'll see what I can do :) Thanks! Equazcion (talk) 01:45, 28 Aug 2013 (UTC)
You could add here, mentioned also on some talk pages, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative to a new user right

I'm responding here to your query at AN, as I don't want to distract from your good proposal for a new user right. The non-user right alternative that I envision would be authorize the limited use of PC2 in template space, and then reduce most fully protected templates to that level. There would need to be a strong emphasis that PC2 would only be used for pages that would otherwise have been fully protected, so that the availability of PC2 wouldn't result in more templates being removed from general community editing. Given my oft repeated opinion that Template protection is almost entirely about the prevention of vandalism, the somewhat low standards already employed for granting reviewer would in my opinion be adequate for editing such templates. Full protection would then also be available to lock out reviewers if needed for a non-vandalism protection reason. Because PC2 is technically available for use, my approach would not require dev time.

All that said, I certainly don't object to going for a specialized user right. Monty845 14:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks for explaining. That sounds like another good option. I guess we have that to fall back on if the RfC fails. equazcion (talk) 14:57, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

Heads-up: your edit[1] borked the page all over, seemingly removing everything within HTML-like tags, so I reverted it. Matma Rex talk 14:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I have no idea how I managed to do that. Thanks for the revert! equazcion (talk) 14:25, 13 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Template editor RfC sig

Hi Equazcion. I just realised that there isn't a signature before the first level two heading of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right, and so the RfC bot hasn't listed it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals. Would you be willing to sign it and back-date the signature to when the RfC actually started? Also, I think it would be a good idea to leave a note about exactly when the RfC is due to end, so that everything will finish on time. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I added the signature, nice catch. Are we entirely sure the RFC will end 30 days after it began though? I know RFC bot has this limit but is it common practice to treat that as the official duration? equazcion (talk) 14:55, 13 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I suppose it might not have to go for the full 30 days if the discussion dies down before that. Usually big policy RfCs like this run for the full 30 days though. Anyway, the signature is probably the most important it - thanks for adding it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
No problem. For the record though I was suggesting it could conceivably go longer than 30 days, even though it wouldn't show up in the RFC lists after that. I'm just not remembering whether or not RFCs are generally given a time limit or what would happen if it were reached while people still want to continue debating. I'm open to posting an end date if these things are generally time-limited so they don't drag on in limbo for too long. equazcion (talk) 15:08, 13 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Oh, yes, even the biggest RfCs don't go on for more than 30 days. (There have been a couple where the close was contested and it took longer, but those are exceptions.) You are definitely safe to close the discussion down after 30 days. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay I posted the end date. Thanks :) equazcion (talk) 15:18, 13 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Answering opposes

Hi again. I just thought that it might be a good idea to avoid commenting on the opposes so much (even if you're commenting that you're not going to comment). :) People might start to see it as badgering, although I know of course that that isn't your intention. You've done a fantastic job in setting this discussion up, so I'd hate to see something as trivial as concerns over badgering distract people from the main debate. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I don't know when to shut up :) But actually, that particular response was calculated. Just in case people took his comment as basically pointing out that I might intend to badger all opposers, I wanted to make my intentions clear. I will keep more of a distance from the oppose section now though. Point taken. :) equazcion (talk) 00:42, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I wanted to ask you about this userbox of yours that shows the number of watchers you have - User:Equazcion/User watched. Is there anything you need to do with it, other than adding it to your userpage? How does it work? Thanks - thewolfchild 20:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you do need to enter the number yourself, like this: {{User:Equazcion/User watched|72}}. You'll need to check how many watchers you have using this (you appear to have fewer than 30 right now, so the exact number isn't going to show for you). equazcion� | 20:58, 28 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for the reply - thewolfchild 22:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Your signature

The large light-blue background block makes your sig visually dominate any discussion section consisting of otherwise fairly plain text. Could you de-emphasize it? DMacks (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The background isn't supposed to be large, but tight around the signature text. But I know in other browsers/resolutions it might not look the way I planned. I'll tweak it down. equazcion� | 21:30, 9 Oct 2013 (UTC)
I agree with DMacks, I'm afraid. I'm not a fan of custom signatures anyway, but your new sig is really challenging. Anyway, enjoy it while you can: custom signatures probably won't be supported when talk pages start using the "Flow" system. - Pointillist (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't be afraid. PS. You could probably annoy people simply by formatting entire comments as ordinary links, or in any manner that's intended for smaller snippets of text, so I don't really think that's making much of a point. PPS. I wonder if we won't find a way to revert Flow ;) equazcion� 10:34, 10 Oct 2013 (UTC)
That was quick. I like your new new sig much better. :-) Pointillist (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks fine now. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem (to Pointillist, it appeared quick because I had actually changed it prior to your comment, but just hadn't posted in the interim) :) equazcion� 15:11, 10 Oct 2013 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that if you didn't include the timestamp in the customization the block baby blue username and question mark would've been okay. But, if you like your new sig more then that works too. —  dainomite   01:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
You're probably right. Maybe I'll give it another go with the date outside the box sometime. I like your new one Dain, looking quite sharp. I'm jealous. equazcion� 01:56, 11 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much!! I like how crisp and clean this new one looks. I liked my old one because of the black/white contrasting background/font colors but ultimately I had to cheat to get it to look like that and it wasn't even no-wrap-proof. :/ I was playing around with signatures in my sandbox the other day and it ultimately led to this. I was torn between the lighter blue and orange font colors. Ultimately it led me to asking some friends about how to randomize the font-color results and viola! Basically the font changes from orange to blue every other day. So tomorrow the font color for "dain" will automatically change to blue. I have fun playing around with signatures and when I'm bored and don't feel like doing anything else I play around with various stuff I suppose. —  dainomite   02:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I like both the orange and the blue, and cycling is a good plan. Signatures are a fun challenge because of how constrained they are, I think. We have 255 characters with which to make something uniquely recognizable as "us". I've always said that constraint is the mother of creativity. It'll be a sad day if Flow robs us of it, not that I expect Flow to come around any time soon. equazcion� 02:36, 11 Oct 2013 (UTC)
I think that challenge to create something unique in 255 characters is what I enjoy about it too. I find it kind of funny that the only way I discovered how to alternate using time was because I couldn't decide on blue or orange I wish and hope that they at least allow us to keep custom signatures for FLOW and that instead of the basic Example (talk) that is on flow now, or maybe all the FLOW discussions on the wikimedia site I've seen everyone just has basic signatures, who knows. Have they come out and said "custom sigs are gone with FLOW"? Because if so I missed that. And just a generic FLOW comment.... I feel like FLOW is going backwards, it reminds me of threaded forum discussions from 15 years ago. —  dainomite   02:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be glad to have something that merely a) does away with edit conflicts on talk pages, and b) lets us watch individual topics, but I'm not quite convinced that Flow is the right way to do it. I guess we'll see. There's this, which states, "[custom signatures are] probably going to go away. One of the things that people find difficulty with is knowing who said what, and custom signatures interfere with that a great deal" (emphasis added). I find that statement odd, since custom signatures provide additional unique visual queues rather than relying on having to read names alone. It strikes me as typical intellectually dishonest WMF-style fodder by people who just don't like the idea of continuing to let Wikipedians "get away with" something insidiously fun on "their" talk pages, which are to be for "business" purposes. equazcion� 03:01, 11 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Whelp, that's awesome (sarcasm). I concur that they add visual queues for individuals and if everyone had the exact same plain one it wouldn't be the same. I completely agree with you. If you ever hear about more custom sig news would you mind giving me a ping on my talk page? I tend to miss things like that somehow. I must not pay attention to the right discussions or something. —  dainomite   03:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I actually only got that FAQ link from Pointillist's comment above, but if I do happen to hear anything I'll try and remember to let you know. equazcion� 03:46, 11 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Oh, hah. Thanks, if you don't remember no sweat. If it causes a big enough ruckus I'm sure I'd find out one way or another. —  dainomite   03:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Equazcion, you might be interested in this discussion at MediaWiki. I asked Jorm about Flow and custom sigs. Looks like it will be a loooong time before custom signatures are going anywhere because Flow won't be used everywhere. —  dainomite   00:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented there with my thoughts. equazcion� 06:27, 12 Oct 2013 (UTC)

your sig

I think there's some kind of issue with the charset/encoding for your sig. What is it supposed to look like? Could someone give a screenshot? Thanks! --Jeremyb (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

There's supposed to be a white question mark in a black diamond. Some browsers (I believe Opera and IE) fail to display it with their default font schemes. equazcion� 00:14, 18 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but that character has a deeper meaning than just "white question mark in a black diamond". That character is a way of alerting people that something is broken. So using it may send people on wild goose chases, send people to warn you that something's broken and generally waste people's time. (not to mention crying wolf) Anyway, your new sig is fine! --Jeremyb (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
All perhaps true, but you're forgetting that it looks cool. ;] equazcion → 02:42, 18 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Not forgotten. Actually you could choose from most of these and that's only from 30 secs of searching. And you don't just have to choose from Unicode, you can use CSS, etc. too. ;] --Jeremyb (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Now changed equazcion → 00:26, 18 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Now that I'm here, I'll also drop a link to WP:DEFAULTSIG ;-) Legoktm (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
What's the fun in that? —  dainomite   05:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Also see WP:DEFAULTSIGISBAD ;] equazcion → 09:08, 18 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Well, if y'all are gonna be linking essays and stuffs... What about WP:SIGLEN, WP:SIG#NT, and the fact that <font>...</font> has been deprecated for years now? But, I suppose I digress... Technical 13 (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I use font tags in order to better adhere to the character length requirement, since span style produces more characters. And I don't transclude my sig, but subst it. And I just wrote that essay now :) equazcion → 12:16, 18 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Documentation Images

Noted. But it needs to be indicated why the image should not be on Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I attempted to get you in on a discussion about this a while ago at Proposals, which you may have missed, but most people seemed to agree that there was no policy of copying everything free to Commons indiscriminately. Commons is only for images that would be of use to someone outside of Wikipedia, and is already cluttered with useless stuff no one would ever need (much of it copied from Wikipedia). I've certainly seen no indication that justification needs to be given for not copying over a particular file, and I don't feel that would be a wise policy.
If there's some template that indicates a file is of no use to Commons, so that people don't continue tagging thusly, then I'd welcome it (if there isn't then there probably should be, and I might even create one). I don't think anything else needs to be done with these. equazcion → 13:50, 28 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

 Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween Equazcion! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween! —  dainomite   15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks.

Happy Halloween!

 TheGeneralUser has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!


If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Hi Equazcion! Wishing you a very happy Halloween :-) TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Online source

Template:Online source has been nominated for merging with Template:Press. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

To Kill a Noticeboard

Given that you believe 6 supports and a weeks' discussion at the Village pump isn't enough to close the Notability Noticeboard, how do you feel about the discussion preceding the closure of drawing board? (Note that this is linked in the notes for my proposal for comparison.) Discussion only on the talk page, for less than a week, with only two !votes, and the final action taken by the OP. Amazingly, nobody's objected in the months since. Is it a fluke, an oddity? Don't get me wrong, I agree in principal with most of the thoughts and observations you noted at the village pump discussion, but I am curious why you think it will take so much more formalized bureaucracy to close the Notability Noticeboard then it took to close the Drawing Board. Perhaps it was a mistake to draw attention to the Noticeboard in the first place; maybe the trick in these situations is to act swiftly, before any dissenters can take notice... I would believe as much, if it wouldn't preclude the possibility of a third party devising a better solution, and fly in the face of consensus as "the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia." ʍw 02:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The drawing board was pretty much abandoned already when its closure was proposed. It was not foreseeably controversial at something like 25 unique edits in its five final months. I think the notability noticeboard should be closed, but in comparison it's still seeing much more continued use than the drawing board was. But hell this is just my opinion. Maybe you could've closed it quietly. Maybe you still can. I won't presume to know. Please do try it if you want, as I'd be interested to see if it works out. equazcion (talk) 02:34, 14 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I think any opportunity for a "quiet" close was lost even with the original post to AN/I, and I know it's gone now that an admin has opposed at the Village Pump. Maybe next time.
ʍw 02:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

(per question at Cluebot Commons, making max age 240 hours)

Don't know how you did that, but thanks! --Hordaland (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I really didn't do anything all that technical -- I just edited your talk page and replaced |age=144 with |age=240. You're welcome though :) equazcion� 13:24, 12 Oct 2013 (UTC)

RFC summary

I changed some of your changes to the RFC description. I thought that your edits confused the timeline (RotlinkBot created, RotLinkBot run without approval, RotlinkBot blocked, RotLink himself rerunning the bot through a web of anonymous IPs after RotlinkBot had been blocked, Rotlink himself blocked).—Kww(talk) 17:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. I'm sure you're much more familiar with the situation than I am. I just wanted to get the description expanded for those like me who weren't privy, even if it was just a start. equazcion (talk) 17:30, 21 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Procedure for the TE permission

Please see a discussion at WP:AN#Backlog at WP:Requests for permissions/Template editor. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Template editor top icon 1.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Template editor top icon 1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Blurred Lines 14:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Visionary Leadership Barnstar

The Visionary Barnstar
In recognition of your vision, leadership, execution and consensus-building for the Template editor user right. Thanks for making it such a pleasure to be involved. - Pointillist (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I second this. Your work there has been exemplary. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the great compliments -- Nice barnstar design btw :) equazcion (talk) 20:51, 18 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Glad you liked it! The original inspiration can be seen here. Unfortunately Adobe Illustrator didn't allow me to distort the star and the W properly. - Pointillist (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
You may want to look into the "shear" tool :) equazcion (talk) 00:21, 19 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually, I did shear the 'W' a bit, but what I really needed was either an envelope tool – which many AI users have asked for – or a way of making AI's perspective feature do silly things. I tried Inkscape's envelope feature but without immediate success. If I'd had more time I'd probably have created the 'W' as a sans serif glyph using three/four separate hand-drawn paths that I could have distorted and aligned. Might do it properly one day.... All the best - Pointillist (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I liked your work for consensus especially, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Congrats on getting the proposal through to acceptance. Really great job of crafting a proposal that successfully took a lot of divergent views and concerns into account. PaleAqua (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :) Couldn't have done it without several others including you. Everyone's input came together rather nicely on this. equazcion� 04:36, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Special thanks

I'm fortunate to have received a few barnstars over the years, but the one you delivered was very special. Thank-you for taking the time; now let's see if we can get the user right created.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You're most welcome, and agreed :) equazcion (talk) 00:57, 21 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Template editor user right

Hey, I sparred with you a bit in the TE user right RFC. Just wanted to say congratulations on it passing. Brycehughes (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a win for us all, hopefully :) equazcion� 09:27, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Template editor user right (2)

Supposing the WP:PERM page were to be unprotected for a very short while for you? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that - it looks as if I'm behind the times. Everything appears to be up and running already  ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought anyway :) equazcion� 09:26, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)

You are now a template editor

Congratulations! I have just made you a template editor. Normally at this point I would tell you what that entails, but I think you know that better than me. Enjoy your new user right, and try not to break anything. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks :) I'll try not to blow stuff up. And thanks again for your help in getting this through. I'm kind of amazed that we did it :) equazcion� 09:37, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
It was great to watch that! Congrats! - My own "rights" are different  ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :) Hehe. That template is bound to get enough uses to require protection... ;) equazcion� 10:58, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Did you see this, about a content editor who would need an ever stronger one? (Protect him, - too many of my friends are gone, how can I "win" any argument? Did you know that "pleasing on the eye" might be an argument that counts, for a lead image of an FA? And if so, how about Carmen?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Simplifying additions to EotW Hall of Fame

Your name came up as someone that might help @ the above page. The current system of adding Award recipient's is difficult for those of us that are challenged by syntax. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Archive 2#EotW Hall of Fame shows instructions but it has been suggested that there must be a simpler way. One that is easier for editors with limited "back page skills". The editors that set up the Hall of Fame have moved on and I am at a loss as to how to add new Awardees. It just seems that there must be a different, AND BETTER, way to do this. Back in July, Editor Amadscientist suggested....

  • And thinking about it, the bot operation needed is a copy operation to an "archive" page. The Hall of Fame page being the archive landing. It has to be located somewhere where the change is being made so I believe that would be the main template and requires some form of trigger like a checked box, or status update similar to the way the bot archives DR/N cases when the status is changed to close. Let me speak to that bot operator and see if this is something he thinks can be done. In the mean time I suggest asking around for agood Wiki gnome and see if anyone is interested in building a new bot for us. Perhaps someone can persuade User:Equazcion if they are able to do such work.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Any ideas? ```Buster Seven Talk 13:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Taking a quick look I'm not sure exactly how what's going on there :) If your hall of fame thing really requires a bot then I'm probably the wrong person, but I'll see if maybe there's a feasible template or userscript method to make things easier. I'll need to take a closer look when I have some time. I just started this archiver script project thingy that may take me a wee bit of time to get smoothed out and is kinda sorta important (since people are starting to use it much faster than I anticipated), but I'll keep this in mind and let you know if I can come up with something. equazcion → 14:21, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Looks like multiple methods of archiving have been used. User:Buster7, what about using subpages for each awardee and then transcluding the templates in a simple wikitable?
It would look like this..
Extended content
{|
|-
| {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame/PERSON1}}
| {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame/PERSON2}}
|-
| {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame/PERSON1}}
| {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame/PERSON2}}
|}
Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame/PERSON1 Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame/PERSON2
Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame/PERSON1 Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame/PERSON2
This method would make editting the article easier and would require less code on the hall of fame article so it would look cleaner. However, since I'm not familiar with how the current method works I may be "reading" this wrong. Are the infoboxes that are displayed on that article used anywhere else in the project? Or are they created / used solely for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame? Regards, —  dainomite   14:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I did something similar to what Dainomite suggested, just with a tweak. I plopped the whole table structure for the next couple of months down on the hall of fame page, with a bunch of #ifexist statements. They point to Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page/Archive 1 and so forth. I tested this with /Archive 0, where I pasted the editor of the week currently on Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page, and it seems to have worked. You can give it a try on /Archive 1, if you have someone else to put up there -- Once a /Archive # page exists with content in it, the content should show up at the hall of fame page automatically.
So basically, for the future, if you decide to use this method, you would simple copy/paste the template on the main page to the next archive number. That would basically be the only step.
If this seems acceptable I can put more of that table structure on the hall of fame page to handle more of the future archives. Ideally this should be done by a bot, but I don't do bots. There are other methods, but the structure of that hall of fame page doesn't lend itself to simple template solutions (barring some module coding, which I'm far from an expert at yet). Anyway I hope that helps. equazcion → 17:49, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your time and ideas....They help a lot in creating an "easy-to-use-anybody-can-do-it" solution. Of course, the preferred solution would be automatic inclusion into the Hall. Will that happen with either of the above??
In answer to Dianomites question, and just so you both know what the current process is.... 1)In preparation for and in advance of future weeks-to-come EotW's I go to Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page/sandbox and start to create a userbox. The idea is that they get the award on Sunday and then late Monday or Tuesday, I give them a Userbox..... 2)On Sunday, after User:Go Phightins! gives them the Award, I copy-n-paste the appropriate userbox from the sandbox to Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page and the user box is displayed at the WP:WER main page and elsewhere. (I'm not sure where). But, the awardee's page is not included since the project main page template will change every week. .. 3)So, usually on Tuesday, I go to that weeks EotW and give them a permanent Userbox.
A look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Archive 2#EotW Hall of Fame shows that User:sagaciousphil kindly offered his assistance but ran into trouble, just as I do every time I try to include the Userbox into the Hall of Fame. The previous set up, prior to equazcion's changes, always left me scratching my almost bald head. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC).
My solution isn't automatic, just simplified. Assuming I understand how this works, you don't need to touch the hall of fame page at all. When it comes time to put something new there, just paste it to a new archive under Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page -- for example, Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page/Archive 1, Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page/Archive 2, or whichever one you happen to be up to that week. Once you paste a user's award there it will show up in the hall of fame page automatically. I hope that makes sense. equazcion → 18:33, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Your solution worked out great. I was able to catch up with 9 Awarded editors by using your method and I was able to understand what I was doing. Thanks so much to you and Editor Dainomite. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
👍 Like Glad I could help Buster. I'm glad this helped simplify things for you gents at WP:ER. Nice teamwork Equazcion. —  dainomite   21:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Ditto here :) FYI I also just added an archive list at Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page in the documentation section, so you can see more easily which archive you're up to. equazcion → 21:08, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)

OneClickArchiver

The script sounds interesting, but using it like this to give a cluttered history is a bit annoying. Anomie⚔ 10:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- I started this because of a massive save delay that's cropped up recently on long pages. WP:VPT seems especially susceptible and people have complained on and off. I figure even if this produces an annoyance in histories it's still better than the alternative, for now. There are a lot of things I'm considering doing with this, and one of them is to possibly add a mode where we check off multiple sections to archive at once (even though that would sadly betray the script name). equazcion → 13:31, 23 Oct 2013 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't like the idea that anyone using this script can go to any talk page and archive discussions. I don't want people archiving discussions on my talk page for example, I'm not even really happy the Legobot‎ has been doing it in absence of MiszaBot (and have been considering removing the template telling it to). There needs to be a way that users can add a template in the spirit of {{No talkback}} that will prevent people from archiving posts on others pages OR set the script up so that people can only archive stuff in their own userspaces (and admins only can archive stuff on noticeboards), also, an option for people involved in a wiki project can archive if their name is on the member list or they have the specific userright or what-have you (like templateeditors can archive template and module talk stuff or AFC members can archive stuff on talk pages in that space). Technical 13 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Anyone could already go to any talk page and archive discussions. This just makes it quicker, and only works where there's a MiszaBot config. If there were an exclusion tag I could see that being warred over at public noticeboards. I could obfuscate the code and make an approved member list, similar to Huggle and such, but I don't think it's quite necessary right now. If this seems to cause problems at some point, that can't be dealt with via the usual practices for holding people accountable for their edits, we can deal with it then. equazcion → 18:36, 23 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Weird archiving

Hi, why did you archive this at ANI. The thread was still active on the very day that you archived and contains sub-threads that were very close to achieving 100% agreement (not mere consensus) for imposition of general sanctions. Please can you undo. - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about that, I somehow missed the recent comments at the end. equazcion → 11:05, 25 Oct 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit lost. Aren't you running a script? If so, doesn't the script look at the time stamps? Also, I haven't been keeping up with this, but isn't there any functioning bot left to automatically archive?--Bbb23 (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a "helper" script that has to be run manually for a particular discussion. It's not a bot that checks dates and stuff: User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver. The various archiving bots have been working only on and off recently. User:MiszaBot hasn't worked in a while, and User:ClueBot stopped working a week or so ago. User:Legobot has been attempting to take over but it doesn't seem to run very often (not yet anyway -- something more consistent might be in the works). equazcion → 11:16, 25 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing. I'd've done it myself but am not well at the moment & can't concentrate. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Then go to bed and get well. Wikipedia will survive. :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem (to both), and get well Sitush. =] equazcion → 12:07, 25 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up

Hi Equazcion, while I opposed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right, congratulations for your hard work in making the proposal a success; I think you did a great job. In addition, as an admin who has handled masses of permissions requests in the past, I would like to state that I am more than happy to help in handing out this userright to editors who need it. Best. Acalamari 10:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been a trip, and I'm pleasantly astounded that it's actually happening. I see you've already granted it to a couple of people -- thanks for helping out there. :) equazcion� 11:04, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Equazcion/Archive_8&oldid=1160831545"