User talk:Pppery/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I was still trying to get things to play nice with the flatlist and you cut the grass below my foot! You quite surprised me, but hey, I won't complain, it seems to work fantastically. I'll test it some more, but it looks good.

Doesn't seem to work for the

b

} 22:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: You actually discovered a bug in Template:Template parameter value.  Fixed. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Look at that, I'm the

b

} 22:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb:  Done. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Now it's the first two parameters that don't work right. Possibly a thing to do with their names (Has-title/Has-blurb). And the handling of empty parameters.

b

} 22:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: No, it was just me making a careless error, which I've fixed. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, the

b

} 22:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Looks like it's yet another bug in Template:Template parameter value (that took me forever to track down), requiring another easy fix (which I did). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems to work a lot better now. There's an issue with an empty |Notes= though.

@Headbomb: Fixed. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• b
  } 21:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems to work now. And I've fixed the preload template to make use of the correct parameters.

b

} 22:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	For this and the associated b } 23:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Um, Headbomb, the actual Lua code was written by Alex 21, not me (I actually tried to get it deleted at one point). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, you fixed several bugs, so there's been magic involved somewhere. Plus you used #invoke' s.

b

} 23:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Cheers for the fixes. There's still one big bug I need to work out as well, and that's if the parameter content includes any piped links. It cuts off at the first pipe it sees. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Please acknowledge your previous use of the banned Technical 13 account, to save me the tedium of an SPI. I was prepared to ignore this obvious socking, and have done so until now, because your new account seemed to have good intentions, until you started being a dickhead at Rexx's RfA. You're not going to squirm out of this, so just admitting it seems most prudent. There might be ways to avoid having you indefinitely blocked if you co-operate. -- Begoon 15:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not Technical 13. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Heh. We'll see. I don't have much time right now, but rest assured I'll get back to this soon, unless you retreat once again to 'good edits' without fuckwwittery, which is why I've taken no action regarding your blatant socking so far. Second chances have limits. 'Happy editing' anyways. -- Begoon 13:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) A full confession at the RfA may help, perhaps. ——SerialNumber54129 13:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Centralizing/redirecting discussion to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Technical_13/Archive#08_April_2019. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the SPI closed as unlikely. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that mistake. I thought I was marking the page pertaining to featured articles, but I was actually marking the page for all April Fool's items. As best as I can tell, "Did You Know" is still (semi-)active with respect to April Fool's day items, but all other categories (featured article, in the news) are defunct. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that the SPI that was opened against you has been closed due to lack of evidence. I've also archived the report just a bit ago. Reading the discussion on the talk page of RexxS' crat chat, some users are debating whether or not someone should message you and apologize for any hardship, frustration, stress, or disheartened feelings that the accusations, the SPI, and other related discussions have caused upon you. I personally believe that if such an apology even becomes a debate in a related discussion, one should be given - even if the goal is to try and end things on a positive note so that everyone can move on.

I obviously can't speak on behalf of other editors directly; I think that those who actually made the accusations and/or caused any stress or frustration upon you should be the ones apologizing - not someone such as myself and in an attempt to speak on behalf of others. However, I will express my sincere feelings of sympathy and compassion to you regarding the situation, and encourage you to not take the accusations personally, and to move on from this as positively as you can. My talk page is always open to you, and you're welcome to message me there any time you need any input, advice, assistance, encouragement, mentoring, or if you just want to talk... please don't hesitate to reach out to me. I'll be more than happy to help you with anything you need. Keep your head up, move forward from this, and everything will be okay. :-) As you already know: How you act and behave following such hardship will be what the community will see and judge in the future - significantly moreso than the accusations themselves.

I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• I just wanted to offer some sympathetic support regarding the recent SPI you were involved in. I've never been in that particular situation, so I can't know exactly how you feel, but I did get blocked once, when I was a brand-new editor, when an admin mistakenly thought I was vandalizing when I had, in fact, merely tagged a vandal's article for speedy deletion. That both stressed me out and bummed me out. I imagine you felt similarly. Everyone makes mistakes and I would like to apologize for any mistake anyone made that caused you any undue distress.
  talk
  ) 15:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Agggghhh, try not to take it too personally. I've actually been blocked twice as a sock due to total vindictiveness. Sock accusations are terms of endearment around here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • "terms of endearment!" No, no, no, , no no no no ... . * Pppery * _{fades away} 00:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	The Special Barnstar is awarded to a user as a gesture of appreciation when there is no other barnstar which would be appropriate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Um, ToBeFree, what is this barnstar supposed to thank me for? * Pppery * _survives 21:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe that a general gesture of appreciation, especially as Wikipedia offers such a beautifully colored star for special circumstances, is appropriate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

	The Purple Barnstar
	I'm surprised there are only three apologies on this page. Thank you for all of your contributions. You are valuable to the Wikipedia community, and I hope the recent events don't discourage you from staying with us. — Newslinger talk 06:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to have seen the "inquisition" you faced at the recent RfA SPI, which was unfair in my view [1]. There was another editor User talk:Woshiyiweizhongguoren, who had been only 14 days in WP and entered the RfA, asked a full RfA question [2], and logged their RfA !vote [3], without any SPI concern. However, they have only now been revealed as an SPI and blocked. I thought you would appreciate the irony and it might give you a laugh. All the best. Britishfinance (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. The thing is, though, Woshiyiweizhongguoren's fate is irrelevant now that the RfA has passed and the arbitration committee seems uninterested in the matter. * Pppery * _{fades away} 22:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Life goes on. Most of the non-content / non-platform development part of WP is not very meaningful in the long-run. I am not sure it brings anybody much satisfaction. Not by accident so many crats are uncontactable/fade-away. This article is an amazing read on long-term satisfaction in WP User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior. Britishfinance (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI: I'm not new here. I was going to redirect Pilgrim (song) myself-—after fixing the incoming links, so it wouldn't set off the

Sorry about this. It wasn't intentional; I was viewing an old revision and mistakenly edited it instead of the current one. — Eru·tuon 21:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Lua

 – * Pppery * _{has returned} 12:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pppery. You know it's sort of a new development that folks are also tagging the template to merge into. Our instructions at TfD don't really say to do it. That being said, I don't mind, but wanted to call your attention to that. Maybe it's something that ought to be changed? --Bsherr (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Not new to me; I've been tagging both templates since I became active in my "add tfd tags" task in September 2016. * Pppery * _{has returned} 18:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

heh, I agree - i wish there was a better shared docs system :(. So far we have translate wiki (great from translation perspective, but absolutely horrible for actually creating content itself -- all those special comments keep breaking, section tagging get mismatched, and very few people actually understand how to use that tagging system. I hope the TNT-based alternative is better -- adding a {{#invoke:TNT|table|message}} is fairly readable for any person who uses mediawiki templating language, and easy to trace who uses what. Thx for editing. --Yurik (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

In truth, my position has not changes since I nominated Module:TNT for deletion back in 2017. The fact that I wasn't able to make as simple a change as that proves I was right. * Pppery * _{has returned} 02:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Which change? The fact that you tried to add a link to a plain-text-only field proves that a module that allows all wikis to share content should be deleted??? Strange reasoning tbh. All small wikis have been dying to get this functionality, but it will only work if larger wikis support them, because we are the ones who have the vast amount of human resources to make these templates/modules. --Yurik (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is that the fact that the module forces that field to be plaintext means it is inhibiting functionality and thus should be deleted. It looks like, in any case, I was misunderstanding what the module was supposed to do; it produces TemplateData, not the wikitext content I typically associate with doc pages, and that limitation is part of the software, not the module. * Pppery * _{has returned} 03:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the merits of the article you thanked me about on Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church, so if you want to weigh in, be my guest.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

That, if I recall correctly, was a technical "thank", thanking you for not using <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> (which I've been on-and-off crusading against sicne July 2016), and unrelated to the content of the article. I've never been interested in actual article content, instead focusing on the technical side ... * Pppery * _{has returned} 03:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

RE Template talk:Infobox settlement#Requested move 28 February 2019:

What do you think about "Infobox place", matching

• section name
• Template:Infobox Australian place
• Template:Infobox UK place

Furthermore, it

• is short (length brought up as anti-move reason)
• only uses one word (multiple words brought up as anti-move reason)
• catches all use cases, no misnomer anymore

78.55.183.64 (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Could work, but the only way to find out is a requested move. * Pppery * _{has returned} 18:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, there's no problem with moving the name of this, it's just the first move made the module non-functional and I had to revert it. I thought I had made that clear in the summary. Hope this helps. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thief! —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:22, 08 May 2019 (UTC)

The content of your userpage is, like all other text on Wikipedia, licensed under CC-BY-SA; I'm allowed to use it as long as I credit you. * Pppery * _survives 00:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I hoped that'd be clear as a joke. I'm happy to see other people doing the same work. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:28, 08 May 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

I re-instated the code that calls the sub-page with some style.css stuff in it. It is needed to make the graph templates work on the mobile version of any page - otherwise it comes out as a blank space. There was quite a one-sided discussion by me at the mediawiki page and the solution finally emerged via phabT216431. RobinLeicester (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@RobinLeicester: No need to tell me about this on my talk page; my removal of the CSS was unintentional. * Pppery * _survives 18:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The code at the mediawiki page is supposed to be a master version, so changes to the en:wikimedia one will always risk being overwritten - which is what presumably happened before.RobinLeicester (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe this was a problem; it would have been removed in the parsing process. But this definitely was. Another error by me; I could have done the simple step of creating a sandbox and testcases when updating commonly used templates; that is my takeaway here. But perhaps I should just take a break.

This is one thing I generally appreciate about coding: it exposes one to the undeniable truth of human fallibility (or at least my own fallibility). Retro (talk | contribs) 02:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Retro: The edit that you pointed out wasn't a problem didn't only remove a newline, it added a necessary datestamp to the template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You are accurate (the weird part is I can remember adding the timestamp). But regardless: apparently I did not take enough care in updating the template, and I suspect there still may be errors, based on the testcases page. I will probably fix them, but you are welcome to take a crack at them if you want (I would not blame you if you've lost confidence in my ability to competently code templates). Retro (talk | contribs) 02:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, no, I wouldn't say I've lost confidence yet. After all, I broke a template used on thousands of pages a few months ago. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words. I know the feeling of breaking a widely-transcluded template; I recall more than a year ago, before my 11-month break, edit requesting on a template-protected page and through the fault of either I or the implementing editor, (I remember it being the implementing editor, but memory deceives) watching in horror as the template became broken because an extra newline was inserted. Unlike your

WP:AN. I should have posted to AN immediately, but I was less experienced then. Retro (talk | contribs

) 03:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Just wondering, since I know you know how to develop Lua modules: Do you know he likelihood that {{Calendar}} can get "Lua-ized" via a module at Module:Calendar? Asking since ... something I'm trying to do ran across issues. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Just as long as we're all aware that comprehension is futile. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, July 15, 2019 (UTC)

Please don't alter my additions to

Possibly a better solution: add a duplicate section header as a

hidden comment every twenty-five vertical lines or so. Then I can take out my comments, and everybody else gets to benefit from knowing where they are, as well. (Yes, the line-distance between them will get messed up over time with new edits; doesn't matter.) Mathglot (talk

) 22:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)