User talk:Naypta/2020/June

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cassiopeia's archives[edit]

Good morning Naypta,
I remember you fixed Cassiopeia's archives. However, I just discovered another issue with the archives, some of the archives are not chronological. For example, in User talk:Cassiopeia/Archive 41 the last message is dated May 18. However, in the next archive, User talk:Cassiopeia/Archive 42, the first message is dated March 23. Can you figure out a solution to the problem? I'm sure Cassiopeia would appreciate the help as well. Interstellarity (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity: Hey, thanks for the heads up! I took a look over at this, and it's curious. Looks like Cluebot is archiving new threads into the old archives, which is problematic because it messes up the date order. When I fixed the archives before, I archived the threads obeying the archiving settings on maximum page size, making sure all of the archives were either under or at cap, but now it seems that rather than trying to archive into the newest archives automatically, Cluebot is trying to "fill in the gaps", so to speak, in the old archives - that is to say, fit new threads into spaces where the next chronological thread was too big to fit on the archive page.
To be honest, I'm not really sure how to fix this issue - someone could rearrange the threads again into chronological order, but it looks like Cluebot might just mess it up again afterwards. I'll drop a message on User talk:ClueBot Commons asking someone to take a look at this. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Naypta. It's a good thing you attempted to fix the problem and I commend you for that. Do you think we should let Cass know on their talk page about this? We could possibly use the {{helpme}} template to see if someone else is able to fix the problem. I also put a link to this discussion at WP:ANI since this has more watchers than at User talk:ClueBot Commons. Hopefully someone will fix the issue. Interstellarity (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has been moved to WP:VPT. Interstellarity (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Interstellarity: Hi Intrstellarity, thank you very much for noticing my achieve issues and seek for help. Thank you Naypta for lending a hand. I understand the issue has been discuss in WP:VPT, so I hope someone could solve the issue. Thanks again guys and stay safe. Best. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessed the article about 1986 enlargement of the European Communities[edit]

I don't have much knowledge about international politics affairs, but decided to reassess the article because –unfortunately– the requests of reassessing articles are usually ignored by users when being expressed in the Wikiproject page, at least it happened to me the times I did in Spain Wikiproject assessment page. I established B-class status. Don't know if the article deserves A-class, because –as I previously pointed out– I don't know about the matter and also if there is enough coverage. So I chose B-class because the article complied with the requirements:

B The article is mostly complete and without major problems but requires some further work to reach good article standards.

More detailed criteria

  • The article meets the six B-Class criteria:
  • The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) is optional.
  • The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  • The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  • The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  • The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  • The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_European_Union/Assessment#Quality_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_International_relations/Assessment#Quality_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spain/Assessment#Quality_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Portugal/Assessment#Quality_scale

Regards,

--Yolanda95 (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Yolanda95[reply]

Hi[edit]

You're a suggested editor for helping me around Wikipedia, as a recently added editor. I need to dig deeper into the provided materials and standards, but have been focused on the George Floyd article

But I do have a question about either a bug or something else... the notifications sometimes post, sometimes not. And posts on talk page have been disappearing - three yesterday, one today - or posting in multiples, as a post did yesterday. Suggestions? Much thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Pasdecomplot: "the notifications sometimes post, sometimes not" - we would need to see WP:DIFFs of the problem edits. "posts on talk page have been disappearing" - it's probably been archived. Which talk page? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The disappearing occurred after 'publish' was confirmed. But, no worries. May I write with more questions after reading all the guidelines? Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pasdecomplot - thanks for getting in touch! Notifications will only be sent to you for either your own talk page, or on other pages where certain code is put in the page - like {{re}}, {{u}} and other similar templates. There are also a number of other conditions for them to be sent - you can read more about those at WP:ECHO. As to the talk page posts disappearing, as Redrose64 suggests above, this might well be archiving - but if you can point out where this is happening, I'm happy to take a look and see what the issue might be.
Of course, if you have any other questions, feel more than free to ask! I'm happy to answer them personally; if I'm not about, you can ask at the Teahouse, or by putting {{Help me}} on your talk page, both of which will result in a volunteer helping out.
All the best! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About adding links[edit]

You added a discussion in my talk page about adding facebook links to wikipedia. I'm really very sorry for those occurrence. I didn't understand what I've done so wrong. In our country Bangladesh, those sports figure alaways use social media "Facebook" and they give their updates there. I have added those facebook page links which are berified by facebook as a result many people will find them in social media and get updates aboit them. So I tried to add those links to Wikipedia. Md Maruf Parvez (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey bro, can you help me in creating article in wikipedia and editing articles which will help the visitors. What kind of links can I add to wikipedia? Md Maruf Parvez (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the guideline about adding a link to wikipedia and learnt about them and understood that social media links should not be given in wikipedia. I will be careful about this in future. Md Maruf Parvez (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading the guidelines. Please ensure that you follow them in future - and if you're given warnings on your talk page by other editors, stop what you're doing and read the warnings that you're being given. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modification Milunka savic article[edit]

Indeed a mistake. I was trying to create an Italian article and I think I modified the English article instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.97.254.49 (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content shareit[edit]

I add content to shareit page, from what i get in internet.

"Shareit application is used to connect and make it easy for you to transfer or move a file from a mobile device to a PC device / from a PC or laptop to a cellphone with a very fast transfer time unlike you use Bluetooth."

It is not promotional content which deliver visitor to a website. It only contain an internal link. The content talks about the function or advantage in using shareit.

Let's see the references of shareit There is an external link to apkmirror. Apkmirror.com is unofficial apk-downloader website. It is pure promotional external link. Not like me Andreanptm (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreanptm: Thank you for coming here to talk. Not all promotional editing involves external links; in this case, using language like "make it easy" is promotional. We're building an encyclopedia here, it's not the place for a subjective list of platitudes about the features of a software product. You should also read about copyright violations on Wikipedia - I'm not clear on whether this is what you're saying you did or not, but you're not allowed to copy text off random websites on the Internet and paste it into Wikipedia. Everything you write should be in your own words.
If you're happy to comply with our policies, including those on neutral point of view (preventing promotional language being used) and copyright, then I hope to see you editing some more soon! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oke thanks for the knowledge. I'll be careful Andreanptm (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to RedWarn[edit]

Hello, Naypta! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

  • Easy to use - Unlike other tools, RedWarn uses easy to interpret icons and simple summaries for common actions, reducing both learning and reading times.
  • Supports rollback and rollback-like functionality - Unlike Twinkle, RedWarn supports both rollback and rollback-like functionality for users will rollback permissions. This decreases waiting times during rollbacks.
  • Making life easier on the battlefield - Ever been in the middle of a vandalism war or campaign, frantically reloading the history page to see a new edit? No more! Enabling RedWarn's "Alert on Change" feature will automatically send you to the latest edit when a new edit occurs - and if you're working on something else, RedWarn will send you a notification while the tab is still open in the background. No time wasted.
  • Rollback previews - If you're ever worried about the changes a rollback will make, especially in the case of reverting good faith edits, you can click the rollback preview button to preview the difference a rollback will make, with the version that will be restored on the right, and the latest revision on the left.
  • Always the latest revision - RedWarn will automatically redirect you to the latest revision if the rollback is no longer for the latest revision - no more frustrating errors.
  • Fast - RedWarn can automatically select a warning level, and, on vandalism and content removal rollbacks, automatically select a warning template.
  • Built on your feedback - RedWarn is receiving frequent feature additions and changes based on your feedback. If there's something you don't like, or would like to see, just say!
  • and many more features ...but I don't want to fill your userpage.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 50 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features which I haven't listed here. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 19:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Bot Creator Barnstar
For your exceptionally helpful work answering bot requests for pruning Template:Current overuse and updating the COVID-19 per capita chart. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Sdkb! Happy to help, of course :)
Let me know once you've checked over the way that the bot is working on the COVID-19 table - I can make any changes you need, and then get it set up on Toolforge so it doesn't need me to be prodded to run it myself! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, just replied there! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep away[edit]

My revert of your pompous and pontificating post on my talk page should've been a clear indication that I had no desire whatsoever to converse with you. So let me be more concise: Any further reverting on my talk page will secure you a place at ANI. Resist. CassiantoTalk 10:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of context for anyone who comes across this, I have taken the issue to ANI myself. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our discussion at RFC[edit]

Re: that essay. What a nice positive effective way to approach that overall topic. I'm of the "make no small plans" bent. If you'd like to collaborate on something to expand wp:civility I'd be happy to work with you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TPG[edit]

I'm going to tone down a bit, reading your user page you are probably well intentioned. First don't repost on someone's talk page after they have removed the content, It can be considered harrassment. They have a right to remove anything there, if it was egregious take it to Ani. Second, per the WP:TPG removing the warning is considered reading it. Not everyone will just come out and say gee you're right, in fact people who havent had coffee, like myself at 5 am, might not respond as kindly. P.s. I want to be your friend too, that's what got me. Unbroken Chain (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Unbroken Chain: Thank you for the response, I greatly appreciate it. Of course, I don't think anyone is trying to act in bad faith here, and I'm glad you're being civil about it
I don't consider what I did reverting, because it wasn't readding content - it was questioning why content had been removed. I also do think that there is a broader issue of civility at play here, but I won't harp on about that - this is neither the venue nor the time.
I hope you're well and staying safe in these strange times! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I actually mostly agree with you. It was unreasonable to expect you to know that the editor had asked for rollback to be removed when they simply reverted your question. While others are correct that editors are fully entitled to remove stuff on their talk page, and it's counted as reading it, if there's a problem they still have to resolve it. Readding removed comments from users own talk pages, which is forbidden, is not the same thing as posting a followup. Of course if the follow up is simply a rewording of the older comment then this may be a problem but it can get complicated. Further, I find it unreasonable to suggest a single follow up message with no prior history is harassment. Indeed there was a case on ANI a few weeks back where one editor made a very very big deal that someone had posted a follow up after an earlier message had been removed and I pointed out this was not the same thing as reverting/readding a removed message. AFAICT (it's complicated since the editor also did re-add a removed comment Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1031#User:Wikieditor19920), no one other than the person ever disagreed with me, AFAICT most also seems to agree it wasn't something to worry about provided the editor did not re-add actual removed comments, and stopped posting once it was made clear to them that no further communication was desired. Which gets to the heart of the issue, while it's generally accepted that when an editor specifically asks you to stop contacting them you should follow such a request, editors should not be expected to be mind readers. And having read something but not dealing with the issue raised doesn't resolve the problem. The main area I differ with you is whether there was actually any point taking this further. While it's concerning that an editor misused roll back, I'm not sure a single instance of misuse, even one where the editor refuses to accept they were wrong, is worth removing roll back. You may disagree but IMO we should treat this more like a edit warring or other such warning. It would be nice if the editor makes it clear that they understand, but regardless until the problem re-occurs it's best to just let it be. In other words, despite the fact that it wasn't clear to you Cassianto understood the rollback requirements, until they misused the tool again there was no point worrying about it. Therefore although the followup was no big deal, it also wasn't necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs) 20:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nil Einne: Thanks - like I say above, I don't think this is the place to relitigate the actual issue at hand, and I certainly don't want to turn my own talk page into a mini-ANI. The thread there is closed, and although I disagree with the close, I don't intend on pursuing it any further - although I would like to know how I can learn and improve from the experience to prevent such issues occurring in the future. I'll just say that I wouldn't have sought removal of the rollback perm; all I wanted was some sort of confirmation that the concern had been taken on board. Also, just a quick note - you got one too many tildes there, and got just a timestamp rather than a signature Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yapperbot COVID data[edit]

Hello, and thanks for all the good bot-herding. {{COVID-19 pandemic data/Per capita}} links to dab COVID-19 pandemic in China, which I think should be COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. I've not fixed it as I'm not sure exactly what "China" means here, and User:Yapperbot/COVIDdata looks like the sort of automatically generated text I shouldn't mess with. I hope you can make any necessary fixes. Thanks, Certes (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: Hey, thanks for letting me know! I've updated the template for the bot's table in this diff, and I'm scheduling a bot run now to update the table itself. Cheers :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Naypta, I Am Depressed & Need Your Attention On This Issue.[edit]

We've continously screamed black lives matter in the last couple of days, but I feel thats not true because Wikipedia has deleted the official Wikipedia page of an African Celebrity and that's unfair.


I wish to reinstate her Wikipedia Account and I don't know how to go about it. It's unfair she struggled to attain her level of fame in Africa only to be unfairly maltreated and disregarded on this Encyclopedia.


Every successful person deserves a page on Wikipedia. How can I restore hers. Anonymousbeauty2018 (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymousbeauty2018: Hello, what's the title of the page that you are talking about? If it was deleted following a deletion discussion, you may wish to look at the discussion and examine the reasons why the community decided to delete it. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Naypta, Thank you so much for your prompt reply, I really appreciate.


The page I am talking about belongs to TACHA also known as NATACHA AKIDE.


She is currently Africa's Biggest Influencer. I usually edited her Wikipedia page but discovered it had been unfairly deleted while I was off the Wikipedia sphere due to health issues.

I don't know if it was deleted following a deletion discussion, I will be glad if you help me check, so I can take a look at the reasons why the community decided to delete it.

Anonymousbeauty2018 (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymousbeauty2018: The deletion discussion for the article is here. I wasn't a part of the discussion, so don't really know the context of it, but you can read through the reasons why the article was deleted there. Hope that's helpful! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the discussion and all I saw is propagandist contributions from all corners against the celebrity in order to have her page deleted.

How do I reinstate her page or at least start a decent discussion on why her page should be reinstated.

I don't really understand the grounds on which her page was deleted because all the majority of the contributions in the delete discussion were absolutely false.

Tacha is a registered brand in Africa and her official Wikipedia page should be available to all Africans seeking valid informations about her on Wikipedia.


Thank you. Anonymousbeauty2018 (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymousbeauty2018: None of the comments there in favour of deletion are propagandist as far as I can tell. It sounds like the person you're discussing might not meet the English Wikipedia's verifiability and notability standards. If you're able to find sufficient independent reliable sources, you can recreate the article - but if the article is just identical to the one that was there beforehand, it will be deleted again. It needs to fit those criteria before it can be on Wikipedia.
Being a registered brand is a great thing, for sure, but it doesn't fit into the notability criteria for Wikipedia. Just like not all companies have a Wikipedia article, not all people do - I certainly don't! It's not the end of the world if there isn't an article - but if you can find sufficient independent, reliable sources that substantially comment on Akide, then an article on her would be welcome. I hope that helps clear things up a bit! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent damaging edits[edit]

Hi Naypta!

I hope this is the right avenue to contact you. With your help (and others), the Simon Tian page was made to be neutral and informative. Unfortunately, as of May 31st, the user Craftsman2116 has undone much of our work, has broken the three-revert rule, and is putting the page back to exactly the way it was previously. The user is removing references to criticism and adding promotional links/facts back in (including adding a net worth with no reference), as well as ruining the quality of the sources within the article (a tweet referenced in the article now directs to the main page of the subject's Twitter account). It is abundantly clear that this user has a conflict of interest, despite his claims otherwise, and I don't know what to do at this point. LiesForgotten (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LiesForgotten: Hi, thanks for raising this with me. I've brought the situation up for discussion at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard - you may wish to add some more diffs to the evidence I've presented there if you feel like it. Cheers, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Athens metro area[edit]

Hello Athens metropolitan area cover all the the mainland attica officially, please don't reverse right edits--2A02:587:4400:2DD0:18D4:B48F:9595:D262 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2A02:587:4400:2DD0:18D4:B48F:9595:D262: Hello! I accidentally reverted one of your edits whilst monitoring vandalism on Wikipedia. I immediately corrected my mistake and reinstated the edit, but I apologise all the same - it was a mistake. Cheers, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok, sorry. I add correct info which just missing in this articles.--2A02:587:4400:2DD0:18D4:B48F:9595:D262 (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise, the mistake was mine! Have fun editing, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of edits on UKTV[edit]

Why would you remove the edits. They are completely accurate.

UKTV decided to remove an episode of Faulty Towers to accomodate demands from the BLM movement. The BLM movement was founded a few years ago and money raised filters through a Democratic Party owned organisation. The BLM themselves refer to themselves as being far-left.

The fact you have removed the comments shows that you are impartial as you have retained all information that shows UKTV in good light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theseekoftruth (talk • contribs) 21:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Theseekoftruth: Hello! I appreciate your endorsement of my impartiality, but I fear you may have meant much the opposite. Nonetheless, I left a message on your talk page explaining why I reverted your edit. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, and we rely on reliable sources for our information. Original research is not permitted, so claiming a channel is "biased" is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, especially when it is not sourced. Even if it were sourced, it would not belong in the lead of the article. I hope that's helpful, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For boldly ignoring all rules in a contentious debate on AfD and closing it per WP:AVALANCHE even if it may not have fit the letter of the law. Putting yourself at risk of incivility/WP:POINTyness by editors angry at a contentious close, especially an early one, and especially as a non-admin, is worth recognizing and commending when it happens. Thank you! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 18:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Psiĥedelisto: Sentiment appreciated, thank you! I'm not sure I'd describe it as all that contentious - indeed, there seemed to be pretty broad agreement - and NACs for WP:SNOW closures aren't disallowed by any policy I'm aware of in the first instance, but nonetheless Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 18:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Naypta: It wasn't all that contentious among experienced editors, especially not after the Trump tweets, but it was still brave to risk the wrath of the WP:CANVASSers! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 18:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You inspired me to do a non-admin closure of my own: 8 minutes and 46 seconds. My first Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 06:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mau Mau[edit]

Hi Naypta. What was wrong with my edit? I thought it made perfect sense. --Colony! Colony! Colony! (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Colony! Colony! Colony!: Hello, I left a message on your talk page explaining what was wrong. Your edits were not written from a neutral point of view, the standard we adhere to on Wikipedia. Thank you, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biography[edit]

Sir - Concerning BILL OSTER - Was wondering why you rejected all which was properly / correctly / accurately entered Friday which was all 100 % true yet you now show exactly same but have not allowed the corrections as entered, such as name of grandson with name of ' ted ' which s/b ' Ted ' - ??? - Will not correct anything on this entry ever again although you all need to smarten up in this regard - Therefore, an explanation would be appreciated unless you choose to do as most others have when questioned and just disappear - By the way, just so you are aware as so many of you Wikipedia so-called ' editors ' appear to know nothing about baseball or sorts in general, I personally knew this gentleman and from the last entry the other day with corrections to HECTOR TORRES, as well, who played with the Toronto Blue Jays when I was involved with that team - You people need to be a little smarter in these things as some people do know a little more than most of you appear to - Thank you very much - 69.158.86.174 (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@69.158.86.174: Hello, myself and other users have explained to you what was wrong on your talk page. Wikipedia requires all information to have a reliable source attached, especially when it's about a living or recently deceased person. Claiming that someone has died without a source asserting it to be true isn't allowed. If you can find a reliable source to assert that claim, that's fine, you can readd your edit with that source cited. You may personally know him, but I'm afraid your personal experience isn't a sufficiently encyclopedic or verifiable reference. Thanks, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view?[edit]

To Whom it may concern,

I recently edited the page "Hardcore Hip Hop" and my changes were reverted. I noticed that in your response to another author's realization of their changes being reverted, you said "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." This is the reason why I made the edit, as the article as presented was not neutral. Please provide evidence that the content of the article prior to my edits was neutral, otherwise you have no grounds for refusing my edit. Additionally, please produce proof of your expertise in music genres, otherwise you have no grounds for refuting my expertise.

Sincerely, Hip Hop Expert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5b80:1bc0:38b8:3d7f:d405:4afa (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1700:5b80:1bc0:38b8:3d7f:d405:4afa: Hello. You removed a significant amount of content from the article with no explanation as to why, changing its meaning substantially with no reliable sources. YouTube is not a reliable source, and for changes of the magnitude of the one you were trying to make, you should seek consensus on the talk page before making them again. Thank you! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@2600:1700:5b80:1bc0:38b8:3d7f:d405:4afa: Consider that you, nor anyone else that would engage with me on the "talk page," is exposed enough socially to understand such matters. Additionally, consider yourself a protector of petrified opinion. | 11:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5b80:1bc0:38b8:3d7f:d405:4afa (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@2600:1700:5b80:1bc0:38b8:3d7f:d405:4afa: You're entitled to be of that opinion, although I'd appreciate a bit more civility in the way you express it. If you have any further questions pertinent to editing Wikipedia in a way that's compliant with our policies, I'm happy to help you out! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stop fiddling[edit]

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE 27.32.179.175 (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Every time I edit, you undo it! Most frustrating, please stop! :([reply]

@27.32.179.175: Hello, additions to Wikipedia are required to be verifiable in reliable sources. Your additions looked to me like promotion without a reliable source, so I removed them. If there is coverage supporting your edits in independent, reliable sources, please cite these sources in your edits. Thank you! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 07:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment[edit]

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did anything happen with the captions[edit]

Hi, I noticed that Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_180#Proposal:_Allow_wikilinks_and_other_wikimarkup_from_tooltip_text_to_be_displayed_on_WP_image_pages has been archived. Did anyone do anything to fix the visual editor captions? If not, should I write a new proposal?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover: Hey! I'm not aware that any decision was taken from that thread, no. It might be a good idea to raise it again if it's still something you're interested in :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a sack of potatos for you![edit]

One potato from every person YapperBot gave a dozen messages! :) —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 08:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you![edit]

I heard you had a busy morning. AdamF in MO (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, thank you Adamfinmo! Busy is one word for it... all sorted now thankfully Plenty of learning on my part, which is always positive! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency functionality continued[edit]

discussion moved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Discussion continued from WP:ANI (and other locations as noted at User_talk:Yapperbot#Current_discussions). Mathglot (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Thanks for opening up this continued discussion.
Can you commit to looking into an adjustment to the code so that a cold start after some time offline won't repeat this? I wrote my answer to whether or not bot should be turned off during an edit-conflict. I'm willing to commit to looking at the code, but I expect it will take a few days before I have any sense of how it works, given my experience with programming/coding does not include wiki-bot coding. I can't promise I will have the time and patience to sufficiently understand it to verify that this wouldn't happen again, but I will give it a shot. I promise that within the week I will at least get started and will put in at least an hour to looking at it and possibly asking the coder or other bot-coders key questions about how it or certain bot-commands work.
If there is no documentation, I might start (or add to) it.
That's it for this subject for tonight for me... --David Tornheim (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim and Mathglot: I won't comment on where this discussion should be - as mentioned previously, I'm more than happy to go wherever it takes me!
This is as far as I can tell the first time that the bot being "turned off" during an edit conflict has been mentioned. What do you envisage that would do? Also, doesn't that have the potential to create quite serious issues with frequently-used talk pages? (It may also not be possible in the current implementation, as Yapperbot is coded deliberately to use MediaWiki's "New section" functionality to avoid ever having edit conflicts.)
The idea of rate limiting is clearly one that's possible, though. In theory, this issue shouldn't ever reoccur anyway, but in the event that it did, it might be good to have rate limits involved. I already have edit limiting code from the bot trial, which is hooked into the FRS bot, so changing that to have a limit on the number of messages sent to a single user per run (the bot currently runs on Toolforge every hour) would definitely be possible if people think that's a good idea. One alternative would be simply to add another parameter to {{Frs user}} that allows users to customise a daily limit - perhaps with a default of 3, then allowing users to set any number there, or 0 for no limit.
Whatever changes are made, I want to make sure that everyone is happy with them - so please let me know your thoughts! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, I think there are two good options going forward (although there may well be other ones that I've not considered - I welcome additional suggestions!):
  1. Add a per-week limit to {{Frs user}}. I previously said per day limit, but in the vast majority of cases (i.e. pretty much any apart from this edge case of edge cases) that wouldn't be helpful. A week limit would accomplish much the same thing, just with far more utility in normal times, too.
  2. Build the code of the bot to ship multiple notifications to a user in one template. This has advantages and disadvantages: whilst it'd mean less talk page spam in this edge case, it would also mean that the notification might potentially be less clear, as the heading would have to be just "feedback requested" rather than a category (as they might contain multiple categories). It'd also mean the bot would be less easy to debug if there were issues to come up: at the moment, because each message is a product of a single RfC, it's easy to track back issues if they occur and fix them, which would be more problematic without that clear connection.
Let me know your thoughts Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya - Allie from IRC here. I would advise putting a hard limit on how many times Yapperbot can write to a specific user's talkpage in a one-hour period, and I would suggest that limit is once - all the FRS notifications for a day should really be delivered in a single edit anyway. I would also suggest implementing a proper rate-limit which takes the per-month limit and uses that to calculate a "cooling-off" period between notifications to a user. For instance, I think I'm set at 30 notifications per month, so a 24 hour cooling-off period would be appropriate, but someone who is set at one notification per month should recieve a notification (on average) every 30 days, instead of just on the first of each calendar month. I'm a bit concerned you're referring to this as an 'edge case' - in my opinion, scheduling is core bot functionality. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 12:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alfie: Hi Allie. This is an edge case, because it is by no means normal for there to be this many "new" RfCs to process. If you take a look at the history of the pages Legobot transcludes RfCs onto - for instance, take the Biographies category - you can see that, on a daily basis, there's normally one, maybe two, RfCs per category. Ninety-nine to process at once is, in every sense of the word, a rarity.
That being said, of course, it being a rarity and an edge case does not mean that it's not something that would be useful to address. A cooling-off period, as you refer to it, is of course possible to implement, but I'm not sure it's really all that necessary - if you look at the history of the way that Legobot previously did this, this was never an issue, and I suspect had I just not sent any notifications of the ongoing RfCs and only started sending messages regarding new ones, it wouldn't have ever come up as an issue either. Bundling FRS notifications in a run is definitely possible, although there's nothing to guarantee that a further run that same day wouldn't pick up a new RfC or GA nom, which would then send another message. Once again, the thing to bear in mind here is that the vast majority of the time, each run will consist of one RfC, maybe two at a push - nowhere near the number experienced this morning. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: As to documentation, the specific bot code doesn't have explicit documentation, because it's not a library, but all the relevant bits of code are commented. Code for ybtools, which is the shared library used across all of the bot's tasks, is commented in standard Godoc style as it is a library, so its full documentation is available here. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. shouldn't this discussion be at Wikipedia_talk:Feedback_request_service or User_talk:Yapperbot? --David Tornheim (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you just bundled all the invites into a single section (possibly by detecting whether the last section on a user's talkpage is an existing recent notification, and adding a new notification to it) I think people would be 90% less annoyed. But people are making much too big a deal of this, if indeed it's just a startup phenomenon. EEng 13:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng: That's one of the options I've mentioned above, yeah. I disagree that people are making too big a deal of it, though; it's important. Being a botop means being in a position of trust, by the very nature of running a bot, and I want people to feel that they can put that trust in me. If people feel I've broken that trust, that's a huge issue, so it is important to have these discussions - at least from my perspective. As I said at the ANI thread, bots are here to serve the community, not the other way around, and I want to make sure that mine works the way it's supposed to. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can send you a whip with which to flagellate yourself. EEng 13:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much appreciate your saying that in that tone. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--David Tornheim (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yapperbot is frisky this morning[edit]

I've had eight requests for comment already this morning - is Yapperbot feeling alright? GirthSummit (blether) 08:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Girth Summit: see this ANI thread for the mechanics. Incidentally, you're "only" lined up for 20 alerts a month, so it might soon be over for you 😉 ——Serial # 09:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this Wikipedia_talk:Feedback_request_service#Bot_enabled_--_concerns before seeing the this ANI thread. I will check that out. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: thanks for the link - got it, one off thing, no big deal from my perspective. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 09:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit and Serial Number 54129:. FYI:
Further information: User_talk:Yapperbot § Frequency_functionality_continued
--David Tornheim (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notices for expired discussions[edit]

Aside from the duplicates thing you revert, the bot is also leaving FRS input/participation requests for discussion that are long-since closed, e.g. [1]. This is the only one I've seen, but it's 12 days past the date when it should have gone out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: That's for a brand new GA nomination, not for the DYK. There are no FRS notifications for DYKs, so that's working as intended. Sorry for the duplicate issue, though - debugging that at the moment, the bot is paused until it's fixed Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. Guess I need coffee and better glasses!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: FYI:
Further information: User_talk:Yapperbot § Frequency_functionality_continued
--David Tornheim (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yapperbot[edit]

Is the bot working off a backlog because it is taking over the duties of an earlier bot who died in action or was captured? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: It was - although the previous bot didn't so much die as was incapacitated for the purposes of this task The first run finished this morning, so now it should respond on time with new RfCs and GA noms. Legobot used to run the FRS, but it hadn't been sending notifications for many months, and its botop hadn't been responding to messages about it, so I stepped in to run it instead. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: FYI:
Further information: User_talk:Yapperbot § Frequency_functionality_continued
--David Tornheim (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BILL OSTER - CONTINUED -[edit]

Sir - As it stands your very poor response is way beyond totally unacceptable - You cannot supply a reference / source if there is nothing known to that point other than a person has died, has been acknowledged to have died, so then the information is entered with the hope some reference / source will then follow shortly afterward or within a number of days, which it usually has when others chime in but the people who did entered no reference either ( ??? ) - You ' editing ' people have really screwed up Wikipedia in more recent years since 2005 as back when it all started things could be entered very smoothly / easily without jumping through all of these waste of time and beyond unnecessary hoops - For the most part people do not know where to go for a reference / source in most instances yet have something which they feel needs to be entered / should be entered and ASAP - However, once again you unknowing types have made it much too tough to accomplish even the basic minimal - Lastly, how can you, being in England, even know anything about baseball at all ( ??? ), as most of you cannot even report cricket properly, having played for Canada Juniors over 50 years ago and faced some of the top cricket players of the 1960s at that time, to be able to tell people what to say / not say ( ??? ) - Please do think about some of this then try to smarten up just a little as there are people out here who know a great deal more on topics you all do not and never will - As you might expect at this point, Mr. Oster's family are not at all pleased !!! - Lastly, there is no need for any of you ' editors ' to ever enter any kind of waste of time responses as it will not be appreciated at this point. Thank You.69.158.86.174 (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Please consult Wikipedia's policy on civility. If you're willing to be civil and to have a discussion, I'm happy to help you; otherwise, I'm not. Thank you. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another satisfied customer. EEng 11:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Personally, I pride myself on being an "unknowing type ( ??? )" Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yapperbot edit summary when posting RfCs on talk pages[edit]

Good morning, may I put a suggestion over to you, maybe to refine the length of the bot's edit summary? IMO its a bit too long. On many older PCs with a lower resolution the length of the summary can fill up two or three lines of text. Thanks. Nightfury 07:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightfury: Hi, thanks for the feedback! I can definitely look into shortening it - would something like FRS notification for "Category Name", which you opted into. You can unsubscribe at WP:FRS be better? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is better. Thanks Nightfury 09:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightfury:  Done - updated to Feedback Request Service notification on a "Category Name" request type (n/n this month). You can unsubscribe at WP:FRS., which would result in (for example) Feedback Request Service notification on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination (4/5 this month). You can unsubscribe at WP:FRS.. Shorter, and also gives greater clarity on limits consumed. Hope that's helpful! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing definition of Prejudice[edit]

I sincerely feel that we need to make a distinction between prejudice and racism in our society. A lot of things have happened over the past few week that have directed my attention to how we view race in society. People like me who are of Asian descent; we normally experience prejudice. Sometimes a few people will say a few nasty things to us, but overall we are living in a somewhat equal society. I do not think this is the case for black people in the United States,and we have to acknowledge this in how we refer ot racism. I cannot edit the racism page, but I can edit the prejudice page.I now have a source, to back up my claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgreene.gatech (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dgreene.gatech: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. As I have mentioned on your talk page, it is important that all additions and changes to the encyclopedia are accompanied with reliable sources that support the claims being made. If you have appropriate sources supporting the claim you are making, you can reinstate it; however, it may not be appropriate for the lead of the article, which should be a concise summary of the entire topic. It may fit better in another section. If you would like, you can discuss this with more experienced editors to the article on the article's talk page. Thank you! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020[edit]

Hello Naypta/2020,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Naypta

Thank you for creating Eastern Army (Spain).

User:Eddie891, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for this article! Based upon the english book I checked, you might want to add a mention of this page to People's Army of Catalonia as it seems that the PAC was somewhat merged into this army...

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Eddie891}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Eddie891 Talk Work 18:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Good shout, cheers! Will do Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 18:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Technical Barnstar
Naypta, your important, volunteer work, of almost single-handedly fixing a months-long broken FRS is much appreciated by the Community. All the best, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 22:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, History DMZ, I greatly appreciate it! If I recall correctly, you were one of the few users who were most affected by the slight deluge of invitations when the new bot did its first run - sorry about that Hopefully you and the rest of the community find it useful going forward! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Naypta. And I'll share a bit of humor, when I saw 35 new messages I was debating with myself whether this was Sinebot's (auto-sign) or Sigmabot's (auto-archive) doing, but the honors went to Yapperbot of course lol. Keep up the good work :) History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 23:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awww, someone beat me to the punch. Well, in any event, Naypta, I just stopped by to also express my appreciation to you for your apparent role in picking up the heavy lifting in getting the feedback request service back up and running. Cheers! Snow let's rap 05:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise: Thank you so much, that's very kind of you Snow! I really appreciate your support Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 07:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help me to improve an article related India and its geography[edit]

Manimajra was renamed as sector 13 legally by UT government of Chandigarh in January 2020 and by February 2020 the new name was finally declared to be written everywhere on papers. Below are links to the decision:- 1). https://m.timesofindia.com/city/chandigarh/manimajra-to-be-renamed-sector-13-residents-elated/amp_articleshow/73114749.cms .

2). https://www.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/chandigarh-s-manimajra-is-now-sector-13/story-ploFPCA4UGpDu9ksUxLtdL.html

Being a Indian resident, i would like to contribute to this new law which was passed by our government .

It is true that the proposal had been initially opposed in december 2019. In the initial proposal, names like Sector M or Sector 26 east were proposed. Here is the link for initial proposals made :-

3)https://m.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/manimajra-rwa-wants-number-not-m-after-sector/story-Q7ZPsdh5y120cEqlVAKuhP_amp.html

4)https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-chandigarh-to-finally-get-sector-13-after-54-years-of-formation-2813378 

 (these articles were published in newspapers in 2019 which is old).

5)https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/chandigarh/mani-majra-to-be-sector-m-863728 (This link i provided over here was published in Tribune India in November 2019 )

But soon the final decision was made which overruled the previous proposals and finally the new name for manimajra was concluded as sector 13 by the beginning of 2020. The next link (6th Link) was also published in Tribune India with the final decision which was declared in February 2020 :-

6)https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/chandigarh/its-official-mani-majra-is-sector-13-of-chandigarh-39042

Please help me by putting your vote in the panel discussion on the talk page section of Sector 13.

Here is an example on how to put your vote ___________.

  • Support
  • Strong Support
  • Agreed

Click on the edit tab and please copy any 1 vote you want to put from the above or you can put you vote by putting a * star symbol followed by 3 apostrophe marks ' ' ' and then writing your word for vote like support, agreed etc and finally closing it with again 3 apostrophe marks ' ' ' in the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taal Saptak (talk • contribs) 03:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the canvassing on the user's talk and on the relevant !vote page. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 07:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yapperbot duplication[edit]

Thanx for starting up a new FeedbackRequestService bot. I have a bug/improvement to report: I received the same RFC three times in a row.[2] Not a big deal, but I suggest checking to prevent duplicates. I also suggest running the "All RFCs" group last so it can't deplete a list for a category-specific selection later. Alsee (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee: Hey, thanks for the report! This is actually working as intended. It's not the same RfC, there are just three RfCs on that page Sorry for the trouble! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doh, I should have checked more carefully. There's 5(!!) RFCs on that page, one is not tagged and one was closed less than a month ago. That's ridiculous. Alsee (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alsee: Turns out you end up with a whole lot of crazy scenarios you never thought would ever happen when you run something like FRS, from experience Wikipedians are an amazingly creative bunch, that's for sure... I wouldn't change it for the world! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2020-26[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • There are some new tools to make it easier for newcomers to start editing. They are available on some wikis. These wikis had a problem with the visual editor for a short period of time last week. This was because of a bug in the new tools. It was soon fixed. [3]
  • Advanced item Some user scripts and gadgets stopped working because of a change to CSS selectors. .vectorTabs should be replaced with .vector-menu-tabs to fix this. [4]

Changes later this week

  • The developers are working on a new interface to solve edit conflicts on talk pages. This will be released on 24 June. You can give feedback. [5]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 June. It will be on all wikis from 25 June (calendar).

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by PotatoLord909 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yapperbot off, please.[edit]

--Dthomsen8 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dthomsen8: Hello there, what problem are you finding? Thanks, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dthomsen8: Perhaps it's more sensible to reduce or opt-out of FRS notifications? --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flooded by Yapperbot[edit]

Yapperbot is flooding my talk page with RfCs despite the fact I should only be receiving 2 per month. I heard that there was a backlog so more may be received but I'm pretty sure that I saw that that should no longer be the case. Anyway, just messaging because Yapperbot says you're it's bot operator. Thanks in advance. Alduin2000 (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alduin2000: Thanks for the report. I'm out right now, but after having briefly reviewed, it looks like the issue is applicable specifically for people with no limit set on {{FRS user}} - the default is not being set correctly. I'm on my way back to my desk now, and you can expect a fix deployed within the hour. Apologies for any inconvenience. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no problem Alduin2000 (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alduin2000: Issue resolved. Once again, thank you very much for reporting, and sorry for the trouble. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus reached?[edit]

Was the relisted discussion sufficiently conclusive to go ahead and change the software?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover: Hey, thanks for the ping. I'll take a look at the software side of this over the next few days as I find some time. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Self-assigned this and am working on it: phab:T256528 Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2020-27[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • Everyone was logged out. This was because a few users saw the wikis as if they were logged in to someone else's account. The problem should be fixed now. [7]
  • Some readers didn't see new edits to pages. If the page had been recently changed they saw an older version of the page instead. This only affected readers who were logged out. It lasted for ten days. It has been fixed. [8]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 July. It will be on all wikis from 1 July (calendar).

Future changes

  • The Modern and Monobook skins use the ID searchGoButton for the go button. This is searchButton for Vector. To have the same ID for all skins it will change to searchButton in Monobook and Modern too. This will affect gadgets and user scripts. It will happen on 23 July. They should be updated to use searchButton. You can read more and see a list of affected scripts.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Naypta/2020/June&oldid=978179679"