| Revision as of 19:28, 21 May 2012 view sourceScottywong (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users26,031 edits →Not the first time...: clarify← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:15, 21 March 2024 view source Pppery (talk | contribs)Interface administrators, Administrators101,515 editsm Reverted edit by B-bot (talk) to last version by Queen of HeartsTag: Rollback | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-vandalism|small=yes}} | |||
| __NOINDEX__ | |||
| {{Retired|mms=no}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 16 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 2 | |||
| |algo = old(5d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Scottywong/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {| border="0" style="background:transparent;" | |||
| |- | |||
| | rowspan="3" | {{Usertalksuper}} | |||
| | align="right" valign="top" | <small>{{time}}<br>{{time|PST}}</small> | |||
| |- | |||
| | {{auto archiving notice|age=5|small=yes}} | |||
| |- | |||
| | {{archives}} | |||
| |} | |||
| {{Float|{{User:X!/RfX Report}}}} | |||
| {{TOC left}}{{-}} | |||
| <br /> | |||
| <!-- | |||
| <br /> | |||
| {{Busy|end=November 28th}} | |||
| {{tmbox | |||
| |image = ] | |||
| |text = '''This user will be travelling without regular internet access until February 12th and may not respond swiftly to queries.''' | |||
| |style = background-color:#FF7700; | |||
| }} | |||
| --> | |||
| == |
== Thank you == | ||
| I've been offline for a while, so I only recently saw and skimmed the arbcom case. I'm sorry, that sucks. Though I don't remember many interactions in the past, I do remember seeing you around a lot, and I remember using the RfA counter tool you made. I also wanted to thank you for to the project. 26,000 edits over 16 years represents a serious commitment, especially when you take into account how many thousands of those were tedious tasks like closing AfDs that require time, thought, and judgement. Thank you. | |||
| Ok, for this one, I clearly agree with your close :) Most of the time when it is a series of personal attacks (calling Troll, Vandal, ec) my goal is to do what I did, leave the message, the guy came to my talk page, we had a cup of tea, he is on his way to DRN. To ME, that was an effective way to push them to DRN before it got worse, we prevented more disruption. Had it only been '''one''' incident, I would have closed it myself as well, and still left the note on the offender's page, and left a note somewhere to the person who filed the ANI explaining that they need to overlook single incidents. I know that other admins don't do this, but that doesn't matter as I have found it to be the most effective method with the least amount of drama and future problems. Yes, I leave a lot of small, personal, polite but direct notes. I am of the opinion that this is a drastic improvement over "traditional" methods. I fear that if we are too hard on people who come to ANI when it is premature, you discourage them from coming when it is right on time, and reinforce the negative stereotype that many people have about admins, often very justifiably. ] - ] ] 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I truly wish the best for you in your ]. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 18:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == WikiProject image tagging round 2 == | |||
| == Missing == | |||
| Would it be possible to run the image tagging again on the images contained in articles tagged with {{tl2|WikiProject Video games}}, {{tl2|WikiProject Pokémon}}, {{tl2|WikiProject Anime and Manga}}, {{tl2|WikiProject Fictional characters}}, {{tl2|WikiProject Animation}}, {{tl2|WikiProject Comics}}, and {{tl2|WikiProject Transformers}}? I mention these new groups specifically because the templates appear to be designed to automatically accommodate files, these templates are already used on some files, and the files used in the articles are most likely non-free local images. If this does require an additional approval (I'm not sure how bot approvals work), it might be good for this to be run every 6 months or so. If this works well (as the last run did), perhaps other project templates could be modified to support files and then added to this list. ▫ ''']''' 23:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I should be able to make this happen, although it may be a little while before I have the time to set it up. I need to migrate my bot over to toolserver at some point before I'll be able to do this. Hopefully a few weeks tops. Feel free to bug me again if I appear to forget about it. I don't think another BRFA is necessary. ]] 15:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| You are now listed as ]. If you come back or wish to not be on the list, feel free to remove yourself or ask someone else to do so. ] <sub>]</sub> 00:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == What if.....? == | |||
| Having seen the many useful tools you have created, please allow me to think out loud here for a bit. | |||
| Would it be possible to create an extra button on the editing page -- <u>visible to and accessible only by admins</u> -- to let other users know what capacity the admin is editing under. | |||
| I'm talking about creating a button called '''Admin Save''' to the left of the current '''Save page''' button. | |||
| Say an admin gave a warning to an editor, then they would click the '''Admin Save''' button and the edit summary would automatically start with the words, in bold, '''Admin Action'''. | |||
| But if the admin was simply editing an article in a non admin role, they would just click '''Save page''' as we do now. | |||
| If you think the mechanics of this are possible-worth discussing, I can (try to) give a reasonable rationale. Or if you like, I could seek comments at admins noticeboard. ] (]) 01:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Interesting idea, but not something I'd be able to do. You're talking about an actual change to the MediaWiki software. The tools I create are external tools which aren't part of the software. You could probably do something similar with a javascript script, but I don't think there would be a way to actually make it bold in the edit summary, nor would there be a way to make sure all admins are using it. I'm also not entirely convinced that it is a necessary or useful change. Have any major problems ever resulted from an ambiguity about whether an admin was acting as an admin or not? Anyway, this is probably better pursued on ]. ]] 15:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Talkback == | |||
| {{talkback|Mtking|UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier|ts=09:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| ]]<sup>]</sup> 09:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Questions == | |||
| I have to say, when I saw your questions, you made me chuckle : ) | |||
| Anyway, I'll give the answers some thought, and respond soonish, though I think a few of your requested examples are not bureaucrat-specific. - <b>]</b> 16:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, couldn't resist... {{;)}} ]] 19:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == UFC 148 Protection == | |||
| I see that you protected the article in question as a redirect. I am working with a enthusiast from the project space in a sandbox in my userspace. Pending a recommendation in good faith, would you be opposed to the redirect being unprotected so that the article may be appropriately split out? ] (]) 00:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I would like to know for sure that the interested parties would like this done. This area is a firestorm at the moment and slowing things down while people calm down is wise. If that is a reason this is protected, it's a very good reason. Nothing good can come of snowballing more unhappiness in the area of MMA at this exact moment. Discussion and unhappiness are happening on so user pages and other places that it's probably impossible to count them.] (]) 00:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you can show me the draft of an article that is significantly different than the one that was deleted at ] or that attempts to address the concerns about the article that caused its recent deletion, then I would entertain the unprotection of the article. It is currently protected because several users have tried to restore the exact (or a substantially similar) article that was recently deleted at AfD. ]] 00:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am not aware of the existence or non-existence of a substantially different page. I think the protection makes sense if people keep trying to do the same thing that was turned down before. Maybe since the event has now happened the article could be written in a way that would work. ] (]) 03:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm the one who wants to unprotect the article. Here is my draft of UFC 148: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Hasteur/UFC_148_sandbox <p>The main argument against the page was that it is a "routine" event. If you followed the UFC, you would understand that this event is anything but routine. It is one of the most anticipated cards of the year featuring the #1 pound for pound fighter in the world. I have shown that in the new draft I have made. ] (]) 03:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If the request is coming from Gamezero05, the guy who just tried to start a sockpuppet investigation on me, then the answer is no. If the request is coming from someone else, then please make an argument for why the new article establishes notability whereas the old article didn't, and I will evaluate it. ]] 13:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So you are going to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages because you hold a personal grudge against me? Are you sure you are fit to be an admin? ] (]) 16:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have no obligation to do you a favor or entertain your requests after taking abuse from you. If you want people to listen to your requests, you should try being respectful. ]] 22:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I strike my request here. The user that I was wanting to help was the one that started the SPI against both of us. ] (]) 22:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Bug in the RFA !votes tool == | |||
| Hi there. I just tried to and I got the following error: | |||
| <pre> | |||
| Total number of unique RfA pages edited by SoWhy: 344 | |||
| Analyzed the last 50 votes by this user. | |||
| Traceback (most recent call last): File "./rfastats.cgi", line 152, in analyze data = alldata KeyError: 'Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/J\xc3\xa9sk\xc3\xa9 Couriano 2' Traceback (most recent call last): File "./rfastats.cgi", line 129, in main analyze(results) File "./rfastats.cgi", line 234, in analyze errorout("Fatal error while parsing votes. | |||
| " + traceback.print_exc(file=sys.stdout)) TypeError: cannot concatenate 'str' and 'NoneType' objects | |||
| </pre> | |||
| You might want to look into that. Regards ''']]''' 08:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry about that, I'll look into it as soon as I can. It looks like it might be an RfA whose title uses some strange characters that are confusing the tool. If anything it should have just skipped over that RfA rather than crashing entirely. Should have time to investigate sometime tomorrow. ]] 14:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Defcon == | |||
| Why doesn’t the ] update? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I shut it off, because very few people were using it. Also, the new page patrol system is probably going to change shortly, and we'll no longer need to worry about pages falling off the queue after 30 days, so it'll become somewhat less relevant. ]] 14:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| FYI. ]]<sup>]</sup> 06:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Nice cover. ] (]) 06:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| You have been discovered by the greatest detective of the internets! TREMBLE before their terrifying Googling powers!!!!!! Your cover is blown, poster of messages! Try to post another message somewhere, just try it! You will be Googled so fast that your monitor will spin. FOUND OUT. That's you. Might as well turn it in, cause this sh*t is serious. Put on your big-boy pants, cause we're goin' to the circus... I lost my train of thought there... ▫ ''']''' 07:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Lmao. If these people would spend the same amount of time on reading content policies as they do on figuring out how to start SPI's, they'd be a lot better off. This guy must think we're complete morons. ]] 14:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == CSD contribution checking tool == | |||
| Hi Scotty! I remember you once expressed your interest in developing a tool that will calculate CSD success ratio somewhat similar to your AfD tool. I see people (including myself) come up with different and sometimes erroneous success ratios for a user considered for adminship because of many reasons and abundance of CSD contributions make it difficult to check each contribution thoroughly. I observed this scenario recently when I came up with a wrong calculation of CSD success ratio for a user (and was pointed out by ]). Seeing your previous contributions to tool area thought to ask you that if you find time can you (once again) help the community by making such a tool. --] <sup>]</sup> 10:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :It would never really be possible to create an automated tool that would calculate CSD success with anywhere near a 100% accuracy rate. The best I think it could do is look for the default Twinkle CSD edit summaries, and determine how many of the edits with those summaries are deleted. The higher the percentage that remain deleted, the better. However, there would likely be a large error rate because of potential situations like: | |||
| :*If the article was restored after being correctly deleted, it would appear to be a declined CSD. | |||
| :*If the speedy was declined, and then someone else speedied it successfully later on, it would appear to be a good CSD when it wasn't. | |||
| :Therefore, with such a high potential for error, I'm not sure it's worth the effort to create such a tool. The best advice for prospective admins and such is to keep a log of their speedy requests (I believe Twinkle can be configured to do this). The way I gauge CSD accuracy is by searching for Twinkle CSD edit summaries (using ) in the article namespace. Any that are undeleted may have been declined. I'll look through some of them manually to see if they were actually declined, and make a judgment from there. For instance, here are . Unless someone comes up with a more accurate algorithm for automated analysis, I probably won't be making the tool. ]] 14:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Another MMA article to watchlist == | |||
| Can you also watchlist ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Not the first time... == | |||
| This is not the first time you have made personal attacks - stop. ] (]) 18:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :An accurate recounting of your voting history is not a personal attack. I've removed the last sentence, if that's what you were referring to. ]] 18:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::One might have hoped that it would be obvious even to you that prefixing your personal remarks with "Don't mind him" is belittling and demeaning. Time you sorted yourself out. ] ] 18:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, if "don't mind him" is now considered a personal attack, then please start the arbcom proceedings immediately. ]] 18:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Surely you're familiar with the current idea that anything non-laudatory is now considered a personal attack? The only personal comments allowed are those full of fulsome praise, but you should nevertheless recognise that prefixing your observations with belittling remarks is unacceptable in an administrator. ] ] 18:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure we're all adults here. I'm not going to continue arguing with you about this, but I'm certainly not going to concede that saying "don't mind him" is even remotely a personal attack. Admins are just editors with additional tools. I'm not acting in an admin capacity when I comment on an RfA oppose, I'm acting as a regular editor. Yes, admins are supposed to be good role models and all that, but I'm not aware of any guideline which says we must conduct ourselves like robots, or that we're not permitted to express any negative emotion whatsoever. | |||
| :::::The fact that you keep ending up on my talk page tells me that either you have some unstated problem with me and you're looking for an excuse to "get me in trouble", or you're just trying to bait me into telling you off or something. In either case, I haven't found any of your recent complaints about me to be remotely reasonable, and therefore I've decided to ignore most of your future complaints. Please don't be surprised if you don't get a response from me in the future. And I'd appreciate it if you'd limit your future activity on my talk page only to urgent matters. ]] 19:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"''I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure we're all adults here.''" Yep, you're wrong. ] ] 19:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I was referring to the participants in this conversation, not to Misplaced Pages in general. ]] 19:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:15, 21 March 2024
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.
Thank you
I've been offline for a while, so I only recently saw and skimmed the arbcom case. I'm sorry, that sucks. Though I don't remember many interactions in the past, I do remember seeing you around a lot, and I remember using the RfA counter tool you made. I also wanted to thank you for your contributions to the project. 26,000 edits over 16 years represents a serious commitment, especially when you take into account how many thousands of those were tedious tasks like closing AfDs that require time, thought, and judgement. Thank you.
I truly wish the best for you in your off-wiki life. ~Awilley (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Missing
You are now listed as missing. If you come back or wish to not be on the list, feel free to remove yourself or ask someone else to do so. Clyde 00:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Category: