User talk:Jackmcbarn/Archive 16

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

18:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

22:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Module:HS listed building

Hi Jackmcbarn, recently, there's been an effort to move the #coordinates call that Template:Coord does separately into Module:Coordinates. This almost became stable until a compatibility issue with Module:HS listed building was noted, that the direct Module call is no longer working. I've made updates to Module:HS listed building/sandbox (testcases) and intend to sync it in a few days when the Coordinates template and module go live with the #coordinates call moved. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 20:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Why did you change it to make it go out to the parser to run Template:Coord, that will just in turn have to go back to Lua to run Module:Coordinates, when it previously just called the module directly? Your first change to just remove the parser function call while keeping the module call seemed correct. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jackmcbarn, this revision still caused red errors (nil global frame) at Template:HS listed building row/testcases (though let me try it one more time). I'm not well-versed enough to discern whether there's a way to call the module directly without the issues. Restored the revision you suggested, but not getting the results — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 22:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC) 22:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: Ah. What's actually happening there is that Module:HS listed building has stricter bug-checking than Module:Coordinates does, so there's no problem at all in the former; rather, it's uncovered a bug in the latter, namely that there's no variable called "frame" in scope on line 657 when it tries to reference one. I'll see if I can figure that out. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: Okay, I confirmed my theory by adding the same bug-checking to Module:Coordinates/sandbox, which made it break everywhere with that error. I found and fixed that error, so now it seems to work everywhere. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh wow, that's great! Thanks for looking into this. I plan on re-syncing when I'm confident that other modules don't have this coordinates situation. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 23:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Jackmcbarn. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

21:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Precious

templates and modules

Thank you for helping newbies and biting vandals, for creating templates and modules, for concise arguments and clever solutions, - user with fluent mathematical skills, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1481 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: "minor" reverts of edits that aren't vandalism

[19] [20]

He explained in the summary of this other, identical edit that wasn't marked as minor that he thought these citations inappropriate as the websites are promotional in nature.

It's subjective, but "I don't think these are appropriate references" is not the same as reverting unambiguous vandalism. I don't generally like using references that weren't written by professional scholars (I think Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia if topics not covered in scholarly literature did not get articles), but most Wikipedians, including, no doubt, Burninthruthesky, appear to disagree. And most "reliable sources" are trying to sell the audience something (that's what advertising revenue does), so the difference between what Burninthruthesky calls "references" and what he calls "promotional websites" is never going to be agreed on by everyone, which means marking those edits as minor is almost certainly inappropriate.

I only looked at the two most recent ones (where he reverted named accounts rather than IPs, mind you).

Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What!? This has never happened before when starting a new section on someone's user talk page. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I didn't see those ones. I agree with you in that case. And what was the "this" that happened when you posted here? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Edit conflict. No idea what happened, because the diff only showed my edit not happening, and now I have two edits included in the history. It seems my comment was posted successfully but I was shown a screen that indicated I had an edit conflict, and then edited my comment to address this, but it showed up as two separate edits... Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

20:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


hillary

Because failing to do so just made the news:

Someone will have to go through november 9th and drop them back down to a more reasonable level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talkcontribs) 21:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

17:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Try this! Greek food is great! It's really is. Plus, I think you should try new foods. Apap04 (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Panopticon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Panopticon. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

16:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

23:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Jackmcbarn,

I was new to Wikipedia and tried to edit our company's site - Omixon. Our page was deleted. Now I know and undertstand why. May I ask you to restore it - to the original content - ignoring all my edits made on the 14th of November?

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norinagy (talkcontribs) 15:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

19:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Jackmcbarn.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Jackmcbarn,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

15:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jackmcbarn. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Apprentice (UK TV series). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

21:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

19:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you very much for unblocking me and helping me to know the principles of editing for Wikipedia! Thank you for chatting with me and helping me recognise the 'show preview' button. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

You earn a cookie for consideration to Wikipedia and for helping out me and other people. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

20:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Pkbwcgs. Thank you. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 16:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Andy Murray

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andy Murray. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello

I'm new here and just wanted to say hello. Where do I start? --BotCreat0r (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jackmcbarn!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Request(s) for revision deletion

In the edit history for the page Arjun Kapoor, there is a veritable cesspool of completely inappropriate, degrading, and offensive edit summaries directed at User:Sro23. I believe that many of them meet the criterion of "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" listed on WP:RD and don't contribute to a positive experience on Wikipedia. A few that I found were https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arjun_Kapoor&oldid=758808991, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arjun_Kapoor&oldid=758808471, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arjun_Kapoor&oldid=758813472 goose121 (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)