Hi, I think it is a good idea to share the context for the resolution of Phab:T32215. Nils did put that on the mw page for that task. I think it is the canonical place, but we could also move that to another location.
User talk:Clump
Hi. Ok, sure---I wasn't sure why it was put there, it started off very general so it looked like a misplaced blog at a glance, but yes, it can live there (although would be nice to be linked from somewhere, so not orphaned).
Hi, I just wanna know why you undid my edits on the user warning templates. In my opinion, saying "hello" to every user warning templaes especially in the level 3 and 4 templates would hurt the user more because the user would do more harm than good if he says hello. This is meant to be more serious, not more relaxed.
Hello. Your sentence/logic is not clear, but to address what I think you are asking: I don't agree that the politeness interferes with or devalues the message, nor is it the intention of those templates to hurt the user. It is possible to be serious and still be polite.
I've restored Kleshkreikne's edit. I see no reason to go out of one's way to be polite to vandals. And user warning templates really don't need to exist on this wiki anyway.
Please do not do that. Those templates would/should presumably be used to inform people when there is some doubt. While there's no need to be especially polite to vandals, as you indicate, those are also the cases when the templates are not necessary. I don't see a need to remove/reduce the textual politeness of templates that are specifically aimed at cases when the user's intention is ambiguous.
{{Uw-vandalism1}} is aimed at cases when the user's intention is ambiguous. The others aren't. Or at least that's how it works on the English Wikipedia.
If the intention is unambiguous then there's no need to use a template, and that logic follows through all levels of the template. If someone bothers to use a template then they're trying to be informative, and in those cases the inclusion of a greeting merely follows common communication protocol. I don't see any need to change it, and do not agree with a motivation of trying to "hurt" the recipient by being less polite, however absurd the idea that removing "Hello" achieves that goal may be.
If you want to delete the templates altogether that would make sense. Beyond that I would appreciate you restoring the status quo prior to seeking some form of consensus from others for the change.
Fine. I've reverted my edits. I'm still not convinced this is anything other than faux friendliness, but this is not worth spending more effort arguing about.
FYI > Dreamhost no longer offers one-click install for Mediawiki One comment • 2 years ago Summary by Clump Description updated.
Ljsinclair (talkcontribs) This has been the case for a couple of years. You CAN install it manually (and they offer install instructions) (haven't made the change to the article because I couldn't find the edit button >.<
Please add this:
Please reopen the topic, if you want to to add a reply to it.
Hello, I'd like to know why you reverted my edit on Template:Nutshell/pt-br, the translation at moment is "Esta página em uma casca de noz", a literal translation of "This page in a nutshell". However, this expression makes no sense in Portuguese. I changed the translation to match the template pt:Predefinição:Resumo. This translation is similar to Template:Nutshell/fr.
Hi. Translations should continue to incorporate translation variables in the original text. Perhaps there's a better wording that continues to include reference to "this page"?
Done (diff)
Thank you.
Why are you reverting?
Please wait for some kind of actual consensus on making changes to anything related to that discussion.
I waited almost three days and no one except Yaron seemed interested. How long do you think is a reasonable waiting period?
As long as it takes for others to feel motivated enough to contribute and reach some kind of conclusion.
Show court ruling for this https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=20921784 or resign.
You were blocked (and have been blocked again) to stop repeatedly removing text and adding irrelevant comments---as was pointed out in the reversion comments, the help-documentation is not a place to complain about developer action or abilities.
Hello Clump
Thank you for your patrolling work at Mediawiki.
Could you protect this page so that new accounts can't edit it? The page is linked from all History pages at all Wikipedias where Growth features are deployed, which means an important potential of discovery, hence potential non constructive edits.
Your reverted the first one, maybe it would be safer to prevent the next ones.
Thanks!
Sure; done.
Hi Clump, I see you are doing a lot of cleanup work, thank you for that. However, it irks me that you've unceremoniously deleted my talk page (https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=21237856). As useless as it may have been, I cannot even *see* now if or how useless it was, because it's been deleted.
What's more, yesterday I received a mail that an IP user had left a message on my talk page. All of the links in that mail are no longer valid because the talk has been deleted - so I can not even see the message content, whatever it may have been. This is surprising and surprises of this type are not good (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment).
I consider my talk pages mine. I'm absolutely willing to request their deletion when they actually are useless, and would welcome a suggestion to do so. I think it would make sense to leave it to users to post a deletion request in such cases. Yes, it would be slightly more work for both parties (user and admin), but it would better preserve users' responsibility for their stuff. I don't want someone else to clean up my property, I want to clean it up myself. What do you think?
Sorry for the distress, but that was just part of removing random page vandalism. The post was a sequence of random characters (probably cut & paste from charinsert):
[] · [[]] · [[|]] · {{}} · – — · “” ‘’ «» ‹› „“ ‚‘ · … ~ | ° · ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → ² ³ ½ · §
I appreciate the potential for loss of a meaningful interaction, but this transparently, trivially, not such a case. I'll bias toward leave more benign future, random vandalism on your page if you wish, but keep in mind your talk page here is meant for meaningful discussion on mediawiki-related topics, and is not an archive of nonsense.
Thanks for the specimen. "talk page here is meant for meaningful discussion on mediawiki-related topics, and is not an archive of nonsense." I fully agree with this of course, but still strongly prefer it if any vandalism is simply reverted. I want to see vandalism on "my property", even if the vandalism included creation of the talk page. It helps me adjust my knowledge, expectations and understanding of what happens and how often. When "my property" is deleted, I can not even know for sure whether there was just vandalism, or if the deletion was even in error.
The philosophy of talk-pages as property aside, waiting for users to confirm or deny nonsense/spam/vandalism on their talk pages is not a tenable policy in general. Your talk page was not being used for anything so deleting it was effective and quick. If further minor vandalism of your talk page occurs I will try to remember to just delete the post/text itself (rather than the whole page) so you can still check the history.
I would appreciate that, thank you. To clarify, I was not asking or suggesting to wait for confirmation or denial, or objecting to anyone removing spam ASAP from any page, including my talk page or anyone's talk page. I solely am in favor of by default reverting spam changes via normal edits, *in particular* on anyone's talk page, so that we can see this in the history. Only in exceptional circumstances should such history be deleted, for example if the spam were very dangerous, and this was not such a circumstance.
Hi, kindly delete Help:User page/pag as it is just the same as the English version, and not a translation. As it's a translation page, I can't tag it myself. Thanks,
Sorry, but I cannot delete it (I'm not a translation admin).
Ok, then I'll ping @DannyS712.
Hi Clump. Thanks for doing cleanup work over the years. I saw that you recently blocked 130.105.160.235 (talk · contribs). I personally think the pages that they created Sister projects does not seem very out of scope. We have a few other pages here related to Category:Wikimedia_projects. I won't encourage such creations though, and their creation is not very high-quality. It'd be better just create soft redirects to Meta-Wiki.
Whether it's within the scope or not, the edits appear to be made in good faith. I feel issuing a {{offtopic}} warning on their talk page might be more appropriate than a block.
Let me know what you think. Thanks.
Greetings 94rain. I agree that the title and potential content of that page is not out of scope, but it was well below just being not high quality, and looked more like nonsense/vandalism: the actual content of that page consisted of a sentence that made very little sense, followed by an arbitrary list of special pages, and what looked like a cut-and-paste of another page (showing icons and actual related projects) as pure html. Still, and just on that basis it doesn't deserve a block, but they returned an hour or so later to create an orphaned talk page consisting of gibberish (broken image link and some nonsense text). I looked at their contribution history, and the day prior that IP had also been recently posting nonsense on wikipedia and wikinews (including the same cut-and-paste of sister projects in a very unrelated context). So it seemed they were just doing cross-wiki nonsense. That impression has not lessened---today they've continued to make nonsense edits on wikipedia and wikisource, in the latter case creating a very mangled and renamed cut-and-paste of the 'trolls world tour page' but changing it to include wikipedia into the title.
I don't object if you want to unblock them, but that behaviour looks less like naive or incompetent attempts at good faith editing and more like random vandalism that just happened to touch on a relevant name/topic.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Given their Wikisource edits, it's evident that the block was warranted... Thanks for catching this!