User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 14

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.

13:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Wugapodes, I have been trying to make an interactive map of covid cases similar to Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps/Cumulative confirmed cases. I am not getting it to work, don't know where it goes wrong? Since you made the mentioned one, I'm asking you this. If you get a free time, can you have a look at this? I get "TypeError: undefined has no properties" when I preview it at mw:Special:GraphSandbox. (Links for dependent sub-pages.) Thanks - Timbaaa -> ping me 15:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I've done some debugging and threw the results up at User:Timbaaa/sandbox/6/wugapodes. You can see the difference between that one and yours at Special:Diff/969815756/970375160 Some notes:

• The main issue was your map json. Essentially, the graphing software was looking for data fields that didn't exist. I downloaded a fresh json file for Indian states and added the needed fields which you can see in the history at User:Timbaaa/sandbox/6/wugapodes/India Map Data.json. There are some differences between it and your data, so you may want to take a closer look at it.
• For similar reasons, there were some issues in the mouse-over and hover text code which prevented region name display and case count display. There's debug code which displays that info, and it shouldn't be hard to rework it for your desired style and placement.
• Your data are weekly updates instead of daily, so for days without data the map bugs out. You'll need to figure out some way to get around this. The two main strategies are to modify your input data format or to modify the graph scale:

1. Modifying the input data requires automatically adding the needed fields on every update (see the data backend for an example) which is a fair bit of overhead, but modifying the graph code will be easier.
2. Modifying the scale minimizes overhead since you don't need to do your own data ingest, but the graphing library may not be able to do exactly what you want. If it can be done, it will require some ingenuity, so it will be a lot harder to do at first (if it can be done at all) but will minimize maintenance requirements down the line. Personally I would not recommend this option.

• I added scale and offset parameters to the map data. You can toy around with positioning of the map by modifying those. I got it pretty big and centered, but you may need to tweak them later on depending on any changes you make.

I'm a little busy with meatspace work at the moment, so I'm sorry I couldn't help more. Ideally we could write a little tutorial on how to do country-specific graphs based on your experiences so let me know how it all goes. The interactive parts of the graph extension are not well documented, so I think that write-up would be a useful supplement to the interactive graph tutorial. If you run into more problems, feel free to get in touch. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, Thanks for taking your time to work it out and for the detailed explanation. I'll tweak around.

• As for the data, daily data is available at c:Data:COVID-19 cases in India by State and UT.tab, I shall be using that.

I am just starting to get the hang of Vega. If I hit any roadblock(or hopefully once I get what is required), I shall contact you.

One question,

Since the mark.debugmouseposition.update uses text from csv, is there a particular need for geometries.[].properties fields in map json? I'm in no hurry, reply at your convenience. - Timbaaa -> ping me 02:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, Got the required working version. I thick they can be moved to template namespace(without leaving redirect), where I shall parameterize it.

• User:Timbaaa/sandbox/6/wugapodes (It has clean edit history then User:Timbaaa/sandbox/6)
• User:Timbaaa/sandbox/6/India Map Data.json
• User:Timbaaa/sandbox/6/India confirmed cases
• User:Timbaaa/sandbox/6/India cases by region - Timbaaa -> ping me 13:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment
  .
• Speedy deletion criterion
  X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion
  .
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

15:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes. I noticed your comment above that you're a bit busy right now; my query is low priority, no hurry on this. Just wanted your thoughts on a matter I came across whilst doing overhauls of the Template:Gs system, whenever you have spare time and can get around to it.

Regarding {{

Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Everything that followed - mass editnotice tagging of COVID pages - seems to just be a misunderstanding of the system. The discussion here misinterpreted the editnotice requirement of Administrators should add an editnotice and talk page notice on restricted pages. Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator only if the editor was warned about this decision and an editnotice describing the page restriction was placed on the restricted page., resulting in a few editnotices for pages without page-level sanctions. Following that, some editors mass-created COVID editnotices, to the point where about 200 pages are now tagged with them. Somewhat delayed to request deletion now, but they do appear to be improper, and anything that unnecessarily discourages participation should be scrapped imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:MEDRS without having to invent a connection to the Pseudoscience ArbCom sanctions. The specifics have about as much consensus behind them as a guideline. Actually following them strictly isn't even really possible: a warning about COVID GS requires the editor be "linked to this decision", but there is no decision since it wasn't an ArbCom case. The COVID general sanctions are like the Affordable Care Act: hastily drafted and pretty much only comprehensible if you ignore what words mean.

So unlike ArbCom-created discretionary sanctions, COVID general sanctions is one of the cases where practice dictates policy, rather than policy dictating practice. Given that the template is used so widely, I think this is a question of policy, not technically a template. My understanding is that the COVID GS editnotice is sufficient warning, and the template seems to be used to warn editors that failure to comply with MEDRS will result in them being sanctioned. While that may scare people, we're first and foremost an encyclopedia. Biomedical information is a topic where we have a duty to our readers to ensure the information is correct, even if it means a slow or restrictive editorial process. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 02:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that, especially my understanding is that the COVID GS editnotice is sufficient warning, and the template seems to be used to warn editors that failure to comply with MEDRS will result in them being sanctioned, do you mean that for COVID the editnotice is treat as the 'awareness' for sanctions, and so {{Gs/alert}} is unneeded to sanction an editor? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:AN or WT:GS/COVID19 to get wider opinions. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 18:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate your thoughts. I think I've spoken to over half a dozen subject admins, and read a bunch of archives, whilst revamping {{

WP:AN, but I don't know whether clarity is a good idea or if it'd just either reduce admin ability to clean up COVID-related disruption just for the sake of principle, or perhaps make the system more broad, depending on which way consensus swings. Maybe it's best to just let it be, until someone feels wronged by current practices and wishes to raise the point themselves. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 20:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot to unpack here, and I don't have a ton of time at the moment, but as I've looked into this more, I think I may be wrong. The two most recent GS regimes,

WP:GS/MJ, seem to be anomalies compared to the other GS pages. Those two use "warn" instead of "aware" and do not explicitly require the use of {{gs/alert}}. There's also some discrepancy among other regimes about whether {{gs/alert}} is a should or a must. I'll post at AN about this. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 21:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe both the sanctions use the terminology "standard discretionary sanctions" intentionally so that the structure remains similar to

WP:AC/DS, hence making alerts (or "warnings" on talk pages basically) compulsory. I am probably at some fault here because I wrote GS/MJ, which is also what GS/COVID19 is modeled after. In any case, I think it's in the best interest of editors involved that alerts be required, also keeping GS more in line with acceptable practices. Noting that the sanction itself states Editors ... may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator only if the editor was warned about this decision and an editnotice describing the page restriction was placed on the restricted page." (emphasis mine), implying that an editnotice is distinct from a warning. For the sake of transparency, just adding that PR raised this question on IRC and I responded, but since I have your talk page on my watchlist, I'd have come here to clarify anyway. --qedk (t 愛 c

) 22:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely think consistent is better, but it's not just these pages. In my AN post I point out that GS/IRANPOL and GS/Wrestling differ on whether notification is "should" or "must", and while

WP:AC/DS refer to this as "awareness" all four of those pages use "warn" instead of alert which is annoyingly vague. I don't disagree that you can read the text as requiring a warning distinct from an edit notice, and I'd even agree that consensus is likely in favor of requiring. If only to deprive disruptive editors of a chance to wikilawyer, getting firm clarification on these inconsistencies will be a net positive. Odds are it will be snow closed in a few days and then someone can replace the text with a consistent boilerplate. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 22:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll take it, for the clarification, but honestly when I said "maybe it's best to just let it be, until someone feels wronged by current practices and wishes to raise the point themselves" I wasn't being sarcastic (and I was honestly going to drop this issue here - my IRC query was back on the 31st). After your latest response I was starting to lean towards the idea that GS being able to diverge from ArbCom's requirements is a pro, not a con. Consensus may well be in favour of requiring due to the broadness of sanctions, but if we're being honest, if tightened up this change might allow more problematic edits through on COVID as well. Not sure wikilawyering would've mattered, since I don't think too many questioned or cared about the inconsistencies/ambiguities in GS; DS instead gets the spotlight it seems. Either way, if we're going for clarification we might as well decide if GS should remain aligned with amendments to DS by default, so an ambiguity doesn't arise again in a year, or result in the need for legalese 'motions' to be passed at AN periodically. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

July

pale globe-thistle above the Rhine

... with thanks for what you do! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda Arendt and for your work as well! I hope you're having a good summer. Have you read this month's Signpost? There's a research report on how the "thank" button increases editor retention that QAI members might find interesting. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you pull email access from User:Sarbashis Kumar Paul? I got an unsolicited email from him whining for an unblock. I can't think of how he would have picked me in particular, so I assume he's just randomly emailing every established user he comes across. Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes. Could you reassess the need for partial protection at Kiki Camarena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? There's almost certainly sock/meatpuppetry going on. The dynamic ip's edit-warring there appear to be only two people, one of which appears to be a logged out editor who'd be otherwise blocked if these edits were coming from his/her account. Talk:Kiki_Camarena#stop_deleting/adding_material_under_discussion_to_the_article, related discussion. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

16:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I may be misinterpreting your actions, but it looks like you restored all revisions of this page after I'd made a point of only restoring the oldest ones (because everything since then is promotional). Now the draft looks the same as it did when it was nominated for G11 a few days ago. I was wondering what the rationale was? Deb (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

After hunting around for a while, I found how this user managed to get around you. Please could you check next time? Deb (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Deb: I didn't realize it was a recent G11 which is my fault. I thought the wrong version had gotten restored, and it just needed a history merge. Sorry about that, do you want me to revert? — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it's okay, I can see that he didn't quite level with you. I've made changes to the draft version and we'll see how it all pans out. Deb (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

20:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on this! Based on this articles' history, we will likely have to seek an "IP Block" for the article G. Capo (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@

semi-protection which prevents edits from IP editors and registered editors with fewer than 10 edits and 4 days tenure. That will last until the 23rd, and hopefully it resolves the problem. If not let me or another administrator know and we can make the protection last longer. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 22:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

17:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I saw this answer you gave. I'm one of the participants in that dispute. I think those asking for the "temporary" location are asking because a "no consensus" result of a page move discussion will automatically favor their chosen name. While discussions should be closed based on policy and not number of votes, I feel this is not always the case (I went through

@

WP:RM really is the best course because it will bring in outside editors who will be able to break the stalemate. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 05:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, it would be great if you could close it! I started the request here

Talk:Sexual_slavery_in_Islam#Requested_move_30_August_2020.VR _talk

16:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

20:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
• HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
• Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

) 19:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

September

September

Dahlias in Walsdorf

I like today's Main page, with the TFA (thank you for your FAC comments!) on the anniversary day (of both dedication and our concert), a DYK, and a great photographer who didn't make it soon enough, Jürgen Schadeberg, - more on my talk, mostly about the tribute to Brian who shared his sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a
  site ban
  discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A
  paid editors must or should use the articles for creation
  process.
• A
  alternative to deletion
  processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

August

Sunflowers in Walsdorf

A first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 August 21, an initiative by Aza24 in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I'll have to give it a watch! I don't know much about classical music, but the story reminds me of Britten's opera Noye's Fludde which he wrote in a way that was suitable for amateurs performing outside of opera houses. Thanks for your work on these and for sharing them! — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

15:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Continuation of this conversation. The page move seems to have been closed by a non-admin who did not cite any policy and seems only to have counted votes. The closure also happened in the middle of a discussion (less than 1 hour between the last comment and the closure).

Not counting IP votes, there seem to have been 7 votes for "Concubinage in Islam" and 8 votes against it. Of the votes against it:

• One is currently under a sockpuppet investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mingling2). Another one I am currently compiling evidence for a SPI.
• One dismissed the scholarly sources that use the term "concubinage" because the authors "happen to be Muslim themselves", despite the fact that the sources were published by
  Wikipedia:Discrimination
  .
• One, when asked to furnish a source that used the term "sexual slavery" in relation to Islam, responded by providing a link to WikiIslam. That's obviously not a reliable source.
• One said "Sexual slavery on Islam is a good topic" but was later asked to provide reliable sources backing up this claim. Before they could respond, the discussion was abruptly closed.

Given such a contested debate I would have expected the closer to given a detailed rationale for their decision. Please let me know your thoughts.VR _talk 16:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: My impression reading through the discussion was that there was no consensus. While move discussions can be closed at any point after 7 days, this one might have benefited from more discussion. Regardless the best way to get clarity is to ask the closer themself. @Vpab15: thanks for taking the time to close the discussion. Would you be able to provide a closing rationale and explain why you decided to close instead of relist? — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't think it would be possible to reach a consensus in that discussion even if it was relisted. There were some good arguments on both sides, so no consensus was the right outcome in my opinion. Vpab15 (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:COMMONNAME failed to provide WP:Reliable sources

in support. I would think discussions should not be judged on number of votes but based on which arguments are in accordance with policy.

@Vpab15: Thanks for the response. Did you feel those favoring the title "sexual slavery" provided WP:Reliable sources that used that name? If so, could you point to that? Additionally, your closure was made a mere 32 mins after the last comment, do you think more time should have been allowed? VR _talk 22:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

A lot of the sources mention slavery in the title itself. They do mention concubinage too, but some users argued that term could cause confusion and sexual slavery is more recognisable and better meets

WP:CRITERIA

. I don't think more time would have changed the consensus.

I don't think the first paragraph of your comment is addressed to me, but I did not just count the votes and also looked at the policy arguments, mainly

WP:CRITERIA. Vpab15 (talk

) 22:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:RS provided that would indicate that "sexual slavery" is more recognisable? VR _talk

22:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not really have anything else to say apart from what I already said. Since the result is no consensus, you can resubmit a request move, ideally no earlier than in three months. Vpab15 (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I know you've been away for a few days, which ironically is the reason for this post (since you might not see a ping) but a comment you made at a phab ticket has resulted in me throwing myself under a bus in this discussion and your input upon your return would be greatly appreciated. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: Sorry about that; today is the start of our term, so I've been busy the last few days. I've left a comment that hopefully clarifies my intent. I think a lot of AC editors would find the tool useful, but the current level of logging makes it difficult to limit damage. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Would you please consider reversing the immediate closure of my RFA Poll? There was no opportunity for other admins to provide feedback, and I've already read the instructions and essay that you may have been pointing me to. Please understand that I am in a unique situation, and I am genuinely in need of feedback both positive and negative at this time. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sleyece, I don't think that would be a good idea. First, ORCP is for editors who intend to run for RfA in the near future, and your initial statement made clear that you had no imminent plan to request adminship. Second, ORCP is not for editors seeking general feedback; the second line of the page reads This page is not intended to provide general reviews of editors. To seek feedback on what you can do to improve your contributions to Wikipedia, ask a friendly, experienced editor on the editor's talk page for help. I would recommend you go that route instead of reopening the ORCP thread. Third, giving good feedback takes time, and editors at ORCP are unlikely to invest significant time into an out-of-scope thread.

If you'd like I could look into your contributions and give feedback, recommend some friendly editors who you could reach out to, or both; let me know. So that I (and others) can give useful advice, are there any specific areas or topics you want feedback on? You mention in the ORCP statement that you're looking for a better fit in the community, what have you tried and how did it go? Best — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That's okay, I already know some editors that I should reach out to from here. Thank you for this explanation. I completely understand now why you closed the thread early, and I respect that decision. -- Sleyece (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It all worked out. One minor permission, in case of the sign can I use QuantumRealm instead of QuantumUniverse? As QuantumRealm was my first preference and there is no one else editing with that username so it shouldn't create conflict. Thank you soo soo much for taking the time to help me out.

) 15:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, it has been twice that I changed my username, I noticed when I changed from Angus1986 to AngusMEOW a lot of my green AfD votes were taken away, and now again, all the votes that I cast at AfD(non-nominated ones are missing), is there a way to fix this? [30].

@QuantumUniverse: your signature should have your username. If you still want QuantumRealm you can request that account be renamed so you can take the name. It's called usurpation and you can find info at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. I don't know much about that process, but the renamers I know are very helpful so I trust you'll be pointed in the right direction. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Minor changes to DYK checklist template

Wugapodes, neither of these should affect your bot, but I made a change to the underlying module that includes the "hookinterest" parameter in one of the checks (it had listed "hookcited" twice, and now lists it once and "hookinterest" once), and I made a change to the DYK checklist template documentation, which, since it's inside a comment line, shouldn't affect anything. If you see any issues, let me know, but I don't expect there to be any. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-39

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• There is a new tag for reverted edits. For example you can see it in the recent changes feed or in the article history. It is added to edits when they have been undone, rollbacked or manually reverted to an older version of the page. [31][32]

Changes later this week

• The number of times you can do something in a period of time on wiki is limited. This could be the number of edits per minute or the number of users you email in a day. Some users are not affected by all limits because of their user rights. They could soon see the limit even if it does not affect them. [33]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 September. It will be on all wikis from 24 September (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Outlines of human activities has been nominated for renaming

Category:Outlines of human activities has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Linguists' portraits

Hello: I happened to notice the favorable mention on your user page of Sebeok's Portrait of Linguists. If you already have a copy, read no further. If you don't: I don't have a copy, have never seen one, and have little shelf space; but I notice that it's titled Portraits, plural; and that Abebooks currently offers a cheap new copy of mistitled Portrait among all the horribly expensive copies of correctly titled Portraits. HTH! -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Kyiv close

I noticed your close/move on

Signpost and probably quote the close. You can also send me any comments, if you'd like to via email

.

Thanks.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Cool! I think the close stands on its own, but I'd encourage quoting some of the actual participants. Rhododendrites gave a very good analysis of the conflict within COMMONNAME, ProcrastinatingReader and Mzajac both summarize a bunch of P&Gs in order to support a particular interpretation of COMMONNAME, and the tail end of the !votes show some common sense NAMECHANGE arguments. As for opposes, I really liked Toddy1's comment since it touched on when loanwords actually become part of a language which as a linguist I find cool, but that argument never really caught steam and it's hard to prove or justify with policy; Impru20's rationale lays out the main oppose argument well and the subsequent discussion touches on a lot of the themes in later rationales. I did learn a lot about chicken Kiev though, so thanks everyone for that thread. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I, too, learned much about Chicken Kiev. So much so, it kindled enough WikiLove in my WikiHeart to create a template. Speaking of, here you go:

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) has given you a juicy Chicken Kiev! Chicken Kievs are a signature dish of Russian and Ukrainian cuisine, made of chicken fillet pounded and rolled around cold butter, then coated with eggs and bread crumbs, and either fried or baked. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

I'm sure closing that discussion made you hungry. Here, have a Chicken Kiev. Or a Chicken Kyiv? Who knows.

Spread the goodness of Chicken Kiev by adding {{subst:Chicken Kiev}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a Chicken Kiev to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Protection

Hey. You recently cleaned up this protection. Could you unprotect the talk page too? It's currently template-editor protected, for some reason. Thank you! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I may have the wrong admin, since I see the protection was recently applied and copied from the old article it seems. Pinging Ohnoitsjamie [34], in case it falls under their purview? Can be changed, too, I guess, rather than removed. Just not sure template editors would be any more qualified to move the page than ECP/admin. Maybe "page-mover move-protected" should be a thing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, that whole set of pages is weird. With the recent RM, I think we could just try unprotecting all these and should problems arise, we can start fresh without the mix of protection levels. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit filter 1070

Special:AbuseFilter/1070 seems to be catching a lot of edits that aren't the LTA that it's supposed to catch. Can you take a look at it and see if you want to narrow it? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The most recent one that went through the filters most certainly isn't a false positive. Can the filter be made not to catch edits that were blocked (by other filters)? Nardog (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: (Redacted) Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: I really prefer we not discuss this filter in public. Nardog (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: Okay, I'll move this to email. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn and Nardog: I've modified the filter as suggested and testing on the recent false positives shows them excluded. Take a look and email me if you have other ideas or notice new problems. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)