User talk:Lexein/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Reverts

Lexein, {{Infobox shopping mall}} no longer supports the 'parking' parameter. Didn't you read my edit summary? — Bill william compton^Talk 06:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I'm reverting in prep for its restoration. See Template talk:Infobox shopping mall for my responses and request for restoration, as offered by the deleting admin. When it's restored, perhaps renamed to encourage proper (numeric) use, there will need to be another AWB sweep to restore/rename all the correct usages, at least. --Lexein (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I've no opinion whatsoever on the restoration or removal of parameter. User:TenPoundHammer asked to remove all the instances. If a consensus is reached to restore it I'd be happy to help out. Regards. — Bill william compton^Talk 10:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested stop there. It would be helpful if AWB'ers checked the claims of requestors. --Lexein (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Bill, the discussion at Template talk:Infobox shopping mall has closed, with restoral to the original name "parking=", with improved documentation. Now that restoring the parameter uses in articles will have a visual effect on article rendering, it's probably appropriate to use AWB to restore them. But if a true bot can do better, maybe that could save you some labor. --Lexein (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You should ask someone to do it with bot assistance. If you have any problems just ping me and I can do it for you. — Bill william compton^Talk 06:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisting transcluded templates

Hi. After our earlier discussion, I realised there might be a way to accomplish what you want without additional tools. For pages whose transcluded templates you want to watch list, you can do the following:

1. Click on Edit
2. Scroll down to "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page:", below the editing box, and expand the list
3. Copy the entire list into a text editor
4. Use find and replace to remove "(edit)", "(view source)" and "(protected)"
5. Paste the remaining list into the raw watchlist editor

It's more work than an automated tool, but it should accomplish what you want (minus the "for all pages ever edited" part). As always for adding large numbers of pages to your watchlist, it'd probably be a good idea to save a copy of your current watchlist before you begin. Hope that helps. wctaiwan (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

• Read the full newsletter
• Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Using Archive.is

It looks like Archive.is is a startup web business being promoted and ties to Wikipedia, and I think your de-linking of the How-to page to the RfC is entirely inappropriate. I've taken the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#De-linking_of_Wikipedia:Using_Archive.is_a_challenged_How-To_to_its_RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You took a content matter, and an RFC and MFC discussion point to AN/I - that's not usually done. IMHO, you overshot: if you had just hatnoted that Archive.is was under discussion at the RFC, you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me. And you didn't notice the neutral, truthful note I put at the top, 29 minutes before you filed. --Lexein (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I read a flat, aggressive rebuttal of me trying to introduce a link to the RfC. I spent a little time checking on the facts/links, and was somewhat confused by what seemed your out-of-character attempt to hide the RfC from the how-to page, and so my intention was to dump the matter on ANI and leave it to others. I saw you had further edited, but missed that one was your addition of your hatnote. My apologies.

I do see a problem with Wikipedia being used to turn Archive.is into a high profile business, especially if Archive.is later turns profitable by showing ads to Wikipedia readers following Wikipedia reference links. I'm not sure what the answer it is, but I don't think the MfD was a proper discussion of the matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, yep, it's clear since time has passed that you and I were at loggerheads over misunderstanding each other's intentions, and my deletions should have been edits instead. It just took me too long to realize that the minimum neutral message was useful, and is what you really intended. Live/learn/repeat. I agree that the MfD was redundant, since the howto depended on the RFC anyways. I think (now) I would have preferred an AN/I over RFC - at least policy-based !votes, and facts, and discussion comments, would have all been regarded at closure (theoretically).

I don't see the problem you do about directing ads to Wikipedia users especially, because according to the email conversation at WP:Archive.is RFC/Rotlink email attempt, Archive.is mostly used (by volume) for porn archiving, and has more pressing problems than Wikipedia's infighting. In terms of "encouraging Archive.is as a business" - I'm not seeing it: Google might see lots of links, but the actual traffic for deadlink source refs is damnably light; people have to actually care about refs, and actually click on the link. It hardly happens, AFAICT.

Finally, I've been distressed lately by what appears to be serious Firefox and Chrome cache lagging, so I've been missing up to 1-hour-old edits by others. So thanks for discussing. --Lexein (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Has "Archive.is" been blacklisted?

I think "Archive.is" is a great resource. After reading the Archive.is RFC discussion and seeing the Using Archive.is page, it looks like "Archive.is" has been blacklisted so editors can't add its pages as a reference anymore. Is that correct? The discussion page was not very explicit on whether or not it was banned. I couldn't find it on the Spam-blacklist page.

Do you know what the outcome was? Are new links banned for everyone or just for IP users? Are old links going to be removed? Jaguar766 (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If you look again at the RFC, you'll see the outcome. It's the closure column down the right side of the page by a non-admin editor. Most non-admin closures are just fine. In this case, I've requested a review of the closure merits by an admin at WP:AN. This is not intended to block the closure, just to clarify it, because I find the closure incomplete. I don't necessarily expect a reversal, just a clarification of what the closure really is, and if it fairly considered the policy-based weights of each !vote.

To clarify, perhaps unnecessarily, Archive.is links were only intended to be used with |archiveurl= within citations, not |url=.

Finally, yes, it looks like it is on its way to being deleted everywhere, IMHO due to fearmongering and petty vindictiveness, and without regard to the fact that edit filters now prevent its addition by any IP editors or bots from now on. --Lexein (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. It's not what I wanted to hear, but oh well. (sigh) Jaguar766 (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Duckduckgo rename timeline

Moving this comment to my own Talk page, because it explains the timeline of events surrounding Duckduckgo's good faith request for rename. Edited for full names, instead of pronouns.

Unfortunately, user Duckduckgo didn't say, and Blethering Scot and Orangemike (and I!) didn't notice:

23:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Blethering Scot posted at Duckduckgo, then, 18 minutes later, at

22:33, 6 November 2013, Duckduckgo requested renaming at WP:CHU(without comment here), 82 minutes before

23:55, 6 November 2013, when Blethering Scot posted at WP:UFAA, and almost 3 hours before

01:25, 7 November 2013, when Orangemike blocked.

An unfortunate, but not really horrible, sequence of events, which better communication, or better checking, could have avoided. Duckduckgo's snark 3 minutes before step 1 sounded like refusal, and so didn't help. But, all done, everybody's okay. --Lexein (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Lexein. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of rude behaviour

Hello, thank you for noticing my edits and for the welcome. There must be some misunderstanding, you see, the link to Joli OS was probably shameless self promotion on the part of some hapless, worthless scum who couldn't otherwise attract users to Joli. The link was completely out of place and nonsensical. I'd be happy to continue this conversation at length over other mediums. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(I use my watchlist, and prefer threaded discussions.) Thanks for discussing. I understand about possible promo, and I agreed with the removal (I didn't revert it, notice), just not the edit summary. But our interaction guidelines still apply: WP:Civility, WP:Assume good faith, WP:Edit summaries We just try to treat each other with courtesy, or at least civility, even if justifiably annoyed. See also WP:TIGERS. But I'm providing these links, without knowing if you've read any of them. Wish you would. I'm not making this stuff up. What you said was indeed mild, but it was just down the wrong road for edit summaries here. I'm not yelling at you, just "hey, here's what's up." --Lexein (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Re:Hedy Lamarr and OTRS

OK, thanks for the advice. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you said the 1914 year of birth was OK because "the book agrees" but the infobox year still says 1913. I assume this was an oversight. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I missed the infobox number - it's fine at (now) 1914. It might be nice to lay out all the sources at article Talk and assess their various reliability, and the son's assertion; that would be where OTRS would leave its imprimatur. BTW, while I'm on the advice-giving bandwagon, it would be nice if part of your signature was a link to talk. --Lexein (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Permission

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia editing and am responding to your request for more info re: photo deletion. I have full permission to use the photo, as it is not copyrighted. How do I upload it so that it is not deleted again? Thanks, --Bentsman (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the deal. Unfortunately, you saying you have permission isn't enough. It needs to be freely licensed, and proof needs to be shown of that. The copyrightholder must release the image with a specific free use license granted, like Creative Commons: CC-BY-SA:

1a. This is best done by them, hosting the image on their own website, with that license granted right on the page with the image.

1b. Or, they could upload the image to Flickr under their own user account (not yours), and set the Flickr image permissions to "CC-Sharealike with Attribution".

2. Otherwise, get proof of free licensing to our OTRS department. This will be an email from the copyright holder's email address & business domain, with a low-res copy of the image attached, and proof that they are the copyrightholder, and granting free use license Creative Commons: CC-BY-SA, sent directly to OTRS: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:COPYREQ for the full details and steps and form to copy/paste/fillout for the copyrightholder. And example.

--Lexein (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this helpful info. Since you know what you're talking about, I'd like to ask you a follow-up question. The copyright holder has the image on Flickr and image permissions are set to ""CC-Sharealike with Attribution"; if I reupload the photo onto Commons and link back to the Flickr page, will the photo now be seen as valid? Thanks, --Bentsman (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Those permissions are fine, but you need to make really sure that that's really the copyright holder (somehow). There's a Flickr uploader option here which makes everything easier. Cheers. --Lexein (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

1976 and other years in film.

Yeah, sorry about the edits in 1976 in film and the other years. I took out number 11 through 22 in order to be consistent with the other pages. I originally added the films to the top grossing sections of 1990 in film through 2009 in film so they would all have the top 20. But then some numb-nuts deleted all of that information. So I wanted to change all of the other years to only containing the top 10 to be consistent with their ideas. Why should the 1990s and 2000s be considered less significant than any other decade?

Glad you replied. Consistency is less important than content, in my opinion. Larger articles don't make smaller articles look bad. I raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, and some folks agree with you, some don't. Let's continue there. -Lexein (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

really poor source?

(moved to Talk:Gina Torres#Better sources needed with response. --Lexein (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC))

Surprised

I'm quite surprised, that even after your input, this editor continues to delete (again, without explanatory edit summary), despite not having consensus. How many editors does he require to speak to him?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. It's classic WP:OWN. 3RR, coming right up. --Lexein (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FleetCommand (talk • contribs) 18:27, 14 November 2013‎

Uh, other way around. I was on defense, being misinterpreted and called names. Thanks, though. --Lexein (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Thanks for deleting anything I posted which I should not have. Sorry about that. I am going to keep looking for Loder's email to me. I don't know why I can't find it as I normally would not delete something like that. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I wrote to Loder at his store, and included a complete prototype email for him to send to OTRS, but I got back only a single line containing the birthdate, without even a signature. So, only circumstantially helpful. Followup is as yet unanswered. I cc'd you in an email to administrator User:Keegan, unsure of your actual email address, since you replied on my talk page instead of in email. --Lexein (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

SVG

This is just a statement of opinion about the SVG mess, in which SVGs are being used to bypass NFCC#3b, through the rubric that graphical primitives are not copyrightable, and can therefore be replicated at leisure. The most important part of the debate, in my opinion, is the lack of consensus on what constitutes graphical primitives and what constitutes detail, and the rendering thereof. I have a technical argument about this. In my opinion, a major missing element in SVG's design is something called designers-max-rendered-dimensions=x,y or designers-max-rendered-DPI=n. Such codes, embedded in our recreations of symbols, would clearly express the designer's intention (Wikipedia's intention/Commons' intention) that the new work is to be used no larger than x and as illustration, not duplication, for the purpose of identification and discussion, not commercial use. Such codes, removed from WP/Commons instantiations (used, say, to unlock rendering beyond designed scale), would no longer be WP's/Commons' designs, and would be beyond our control. Obviously, such codes don't exist, more's the pity. --Lexein (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)