User talk:Djsasso

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

  • Archive #1 - Entries archived from May 2008 through March 2009.
  • Archive #2 - Entries archived from April 2009 through March 2010.
  • Archive #3 - Entries archived from April 2010 through August 2011.
  • Archive #4 - Entries archived from September 2011 through April 2012.
  • Archive #5 - Entries archived from May 2012 through September 2013.
  • Archive #6 - Entries archived from October 2013 through Current.

Please restore me to the AWB list[change | change source]

I was on it until this edit. Cheers! BD2412 (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Not that you can't have it. But do you really need it? Generally on this wiki we only give AWB to people with specific task in mind and an estimated end date. You have only made 25 edits in total on this wiki in the 2+ years since you had been granted access. -DJSasso (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
If I have it, I will use it to fix disambiguation links. Of course, this is a neverending task. BD2412 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there somewhere else that I need to bring this request to have it acted upon? BD2412 (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Well as I told you, we don't allow AWB to be used for tasks like this. AWB use here is only allowed in very rare cases. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This project is rife with errors that can only confuse readers (like links pointing to disambiguation pages rather than articles), and AWB is an excellent tool for fixing a large number of these kinds of errors quickly. It seems odd that a project would prefer to make it difficult to fix errors that are likely to be generated regularly, so if this is the policy, then the policy needs to be changed as soon as possible. In any case, if you will restore my AWB access on a temporary basis, I will use it to fix the current set of links to Bass, Model, and Nucleus, which are some of the disambiguation pages that I regularly maintain on Wikipedia. Cheers! BD2412 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) DJ, I don't want to override you, but I think giving BD2412 AWB access would help us immensely. I worked with BD2412 a lot on disambiguating on enwiki when I was more active there, and I believe BD2412 would be responsible with it. We need a lot of disambiguating here, and it's so tedious that it doesn't get done much without the use of tools. AWB has an excellent feature specifically for disambiguation. I believe that BD2412 would work within reasonable limits (such as doing mass disambiguating only when an admin is available to give and remove the flood flag). I ask you to please reconsider your denial so that this willing editor can help us with this. After all, he/she was given the access in the past for the same purpose with no problem. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Just a minor correction, they never actually used it when they were given access before so I don't actually know there was no problem. If you want to give it to them you are free too, however, I don't like the idea of giving AWB to an editor who isn't a regular editor here for a task we normally don't give it out for. But I am only one admin, feel free. But the first time he floods the recent changes with edits it will be removed and he will be warned. -DJSasso (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Djsasso, please assume good faith with respect to my intentions and my capacity to conform my conduct to the rules of this project. Cheers! BD2412 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I have not been assuming bad faith. Its a powerful tool that almost everyone, including admins have screwed up using on this wiki at some point or another. And with our very small user base it is very difficult to recover from such situations. For example most people just start going on it flooding the recent changes on it. Not realizing that when AWB is used they need to have the flood flag, and every single edit has to be gone through by the admin granting the flag one by one. Thus, granting it to someone who has almost no editing history here is something I don't choose to do lightly because a person who doesn't edit here isn't likely to know our editing policies. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think all AWB edits are gone through one by one. I'm spot checking BD2412's edits, but I am certainly not looking at every one. I know this editor's work on enwiki and it is good. Before giving AWB access, I explained about the flood flag and that the access was being given only for disambiguating. I think that is enough for this specific task. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If you grant flood flag you are expected to check every edit (not necessarily AWB). You are expected to be the eyes for the community who won't see their edits on recent changes. Edits without the flood flag don't matter as the community can see them and object/revert if they see them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, for flood flag maybe. I thought you were talking about AWB edits. BD2412 is doing changes in smaller batches so as not to need the flood flag. Still, at some point we get to where we trust certain users. I realize that you don't know this user, but I do and I trust him/her. That should be all that is required. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The point where we trust the user with flood flag, is when they are made admin. As for AWB yeah, that is why I said if you trust them give it to them. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I note your opinion, but I don't share it. I'm not saying we never need to check. It's a judgment call. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It is actually something the community said we had to do when we started giving the flood flag to non-admins, originally we only gave it to admins. It was part of what differentiated a user getting a flood flag and a user getting a bot flag. One had oversite by an admin and the other did not and required a bureaucrat to approve. I will have to look up the discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
That would be helpful. It would be good to have a list somewhere of this kind of thing so that it doesn't depend on the administrators of longer standing (I didn't want to say "older"!) remembering them. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Your change (2 years ago) to Template:Infobox hockey team[change | change source]

This is about this change you made in December 2012. It is apparently causing a call to a template we don't have, Template:Infobox hockey team using CAN eng. Is that a template you intended to create? If it isn't going to get created, can we remove or comment out the code at the end of the template that's causing the call? I found this when looking at Special:WantedTemplates -- it's the first one on that list. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I am reverting your reversion[change | change source]

I am reverting your reversion of the italic at the P vs NP article. Please be civil: Your reversion has no edit summary, and was without other explanation as to why my seemingly mild (vs. encouraged bold) edit is contrary to policy or technical requirement. Please explain why my edit, the edit of an educator, was unacceptable. You can do this in a Talk section, or in an edit summary. But reversion without edit summary or Talk comment—while all too common at the en.WP—is contrary to the spirit of this enterprise. Thank you in advance for your collegial interactions. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your greeting, with my first edit at Wikipedia. One of the links you provided (indirectly, in the greeting, via the Rules link), was to the following "Behaviour guideline": [1]. Whether I should or not, your manner of dealing with the aforementioned edit is to feel "bitten". Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

meta spam??[change | change source]

What is a meta spam id? I pick it up from the revison history of Agender. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure. I think I would need more context. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It's a tag which was applied to the edit by a global edit filter. Chenzw  Talk  15:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Vector.css[change | change source]

This page has references to the Link FA and Link GA templates that were just deleted. I see that you were the last person to change this page. Should the references to those templates be removed? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)