Wikipedia talk:Scripts++/Issue 22

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

New issue?[edit]

@DannyS712: I hadn't heard about this newsletter until just now, when I saw it on a user's talk page. I notice that it hasn't been updated in a while -- perhaps I could help with that? I've also written a few scripts which I haven't really bothered to talk about anywhere, if content is needed :^) jp×g 22:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realized I had fallen very behind - unfortunately I just don't have as much time as I used to. I'll probably send the issue soon including a note that I'm sure I missed things, but that I could really use some help with this. If you want to add anything to the next draft feel free, Wikipedia:Scripts++/Next --DannyS712 (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712 If you want I could take over the newsletter until you have more time. - ZLEA T\C 15:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Danny hasn't edited since November 19, in an edit where he noted that he was "not around much anymore". @DannyS712: If you'd like, I (or presumably ZLEA above) would be fine with publishing this issue, as well as further issues if you don't have time to. I think this newsletter is pretty cool, so it would be a little sad if it died out. It looks like this issue is about ready to go. If there's no further response here for a while, I think it might warrant just sending it out. jp×g 09:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 22[edit]

@JPxG: Thanks for the mention but my SkinSwitcher is just a fork and update of Eizen's version (which I don't think has been mentioned in Scripts++ before). Maybe it should go under either "Updated" or "New maintainers". ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 02:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh: Good catch. I've updated the page. Let me know if this is good. jp×g 02:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks good! ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 04:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Send soon?[edit]

@JPxG. @ZLEA Shall we send soon? Mainly for size reasons. The longer we wait the longer it gets, and a long newsletter might not be as easy to read. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is basically ready to go -- the main reason I'd been holding back is because @DannyS712: hadn't given any kind of go-ahead to publish in his absence (and hasn't edited since November). But there's a message earlier on this talk page a few sections up asking him about it in October... at this point, if we all think it is fine to go ahead and send it out, it's probably fine to go ahead and send it out. jp×g 13:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I say go ahead and publish it since DannyS712 is currently inactive. Maybe give a day for Danny to respond since they've been pinged. - ZLEA T\C 15:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just logged on for the first time in a while - please feel free to send, generally if I don't respond in a few days you can assume its okay, it shouldn't wait for me to be around since I have had very little time recently DannyS712 (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, will send it now. Thanks for everything! jp×g 05:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Featured script[edit]

As the author of LuckyRename I'm very happy to see my script being presented as the featured script of this issue, except I'm not happy at all as I'm being called a peanut gallery by the person who awarded it. Next time just feature someone else's script or keep your insults to yourself. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: Apologies if any offense was caused -- the "peanut gallery" mentioned in that edit summary was in reference to attendants of this AN/I thread where I asked people to pick a couple random numbers to decide on a featured script for the month (I could have just rolled dice, but my own scripts were in the list so I felt like impartiality was needed). If I were setting up the whole newsletter from the get-go, I would have employed a more rigorous method, and asked people to nominate scripts or something. jp×g 11:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, oooh I very much misunderstood your edit summary in that case! I thought you were calling me a peanut gallery for something I would have said on a noticeboard ("Any source of heckling, unwelcome commentary or criticism, especially from a know-it-all or of an inexpert nature"). Luckily that isn't the case, you were just humorously referring to the people who commented on your random number request. I take my harsh words back. For this sort of thing people usually use the stock/currency market or the weather by publicly stating they'll use whatever value it has at a defined point in the future. In this particular case, without time for a vote, instead of random I would have probably gone with whichever script currently has the most users. (this isn't ideal, a vote is usually better as that can use quality as a factor but generally it'll beat random) Thank you for your efforts to create the newsletter! — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Scripts%2B%2B/Issue_22&oldid=1192461309"