|
Hi.
I've repeatedly tried discussing with @EEFamilyTree about this and my 'talk' is deleted/archived without a response. They are continuously ignoring the set presentation of the duration of characters, is actively vandalising articles (Johnny Carter and Ruby Allen) alongside newer ones like Teddy Mitchell.
You've reverted mine even though mine is the consistent, correct visual style. GuyFromEE (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @GuyFromEE I don't think I've reverted you, but the places to take your content dispute after talk page discussion have failed are listed at WP:DRR. By continuing to revert each other, both you and EEFamilyTree are at risk of being blocked. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And to clarify, I don't see posts from you to places like Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request, or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You made a post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders#Presentation of Character duration. but too little time has passed for people to respond. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though I'm the one in the right?
- I've tried the content dispute and they simply refuse to have a conversation about it or listen. This is getting ridiculous on all accounts. I simply want the presentation of duration to be consistent. GuyFromEE (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @GuyFromEE This is a style dispute, the edits are not obvious vandalism, so none of the exceptions to WP:3RRNO apply. You've been given three resources for resolving this dispute and haven't attempted any of them (instead going to WP:RFPP, WP:SPI, and WP:AARV for some reason), and even if you have some reason for not wanting to go to any of them you could open a Request for Comment on the WikiProject page rather than a casual discussion (although you'd need to write a more neutral statement about the issue). I'll be posting a formal final warning on your and EEfamilytrees talk pages, and any further edit warring will result in a block. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You’re bias.
- extremely bias. GuyFromEE (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @GuyFromEE I've warned both of you, there's no bias here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made a more concise edit to Paul Pelosi's page, including reliable sources from the Washington Post and Roll Call. 138.88.222.231 (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You have been blocked from that page for Edit warring. When your changes are reverted, you should discuss them with the other editor on their talk page or the article's talk page before re-implementing them. See WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The above IP has added the contested content to Piatti Ristorante and Auberge du Soleil. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Muboshgu Thanks for the heads up. Since it hasn't become edit warring on those pages yet I'm hesitant to take any action myself, but if you want to extend or modify the block feel free. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I might, but I'd rather not as somewhat WP:INVOLVED. I'll let you know if it becomes edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:1F2B:9006:550D:F0CC:D284:16E6 is evading their block and creating disruption by altering the party affiliations of members in the List of members of the 16th National Assembly of Pakistan to reflect their own preference, which does not align with the official National Assembly source. This action also violates WP:BLPVIO. The range was blocked most recently by you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @SheriffIsInTown Thanks, I've extended the pblock to that page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An error is happening at the episodes table after your update. (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think your recent edit for Module:Episode table bugged out for every article that contains it due to an error in the code. I'm no expert on it, but I'm letting you know just in case. JT0219 (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tbhotch and JT0219:
 Fixed --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you, but as the admin who granted rollback, I figured you might want to be kept in the loop here. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @GreenLipstickLesbian Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye on that editor. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just to let you know that I blocked this IP Special:Contributions/5.187.0.85 which was being used to evade your recent blocking of this IP Special:Contributions/5.187.4.66. I just matched your original block duration, and did not extend the original block. TigerShark (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @TigerShark Thanks. Looks like 5.187.0.0/21 has been blocked for most of the last 8 years per {{colocationwebhost}} but it just expired, so I reinstated that rangeblock. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ahect, happy new year!
Recently i have been developing interest to get the New Page Reviewer privilege. I want to ask you informally if i you think i can get it. I know this is not the proper channel, but i will love to have and admin evaluate me first, incase i shouldn't waste my time. See, i have been clutching up lately in terms of contributing to the environment, i have requested other privileges as well, but no one is getting back to me on the respective formal request page yet, no response. What do you say Ahect? Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 23:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cameremote I don't have time for a deep dive, but in general the New Page Review is not granted to editors with less than 90 days on Wikipedia or less than 500 non-deleted edits to articles, neither of which you meet. Beyond those minimums, I'd want to see evidence of page creation and participation in deletion discussions that demonstrate your understanding of the policies surrounding those areas. See WP:NPRCRITERIA. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback, I sincerely appreciate. Given all the requirements you listed, then I have to do more. As for now, I have 21 articles on mainspace with one deleted. Most of which are rated start or C class. I joined Wikipedia in late November 2024, and given my article creation rate, I'm more than active. I try as much as possible to engage in PROD discussions.
- Overall thanks for the encouraging feedback. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 15:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you can unblock User talk:ChazStevensOfficial. We received a ticket from VRT confirming their identity (ticket:2025010710008896). Thanks —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {u - t? - uselessc} 12:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Matrix
 Done. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
re: this report Sorry, I rangeblocked before seeing your decline. Did you look at the contributions of the /64? They're cycling through the range to blank content and add nonsense.-- Ponyobons mots 22:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that I saw the report via T:AD and it hadn't updated to show your response yet. I don't usually use the dashboard for AIV and won't continue to do so due to the lag.-- Ponyobons mots 22:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ponyo that block's fine. I had dismissed the report since it was basically "they were rude to me", but if there was more damage coming from that range it's probably a good block. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Ahecht,
In your script Page swap GUI, could you add a feature that automatically reviews the page that was moved to and from draft space? This will greatly save time for movers and redirect patrollers. Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bunnypranav I added it to the "To Do" list, but it's not that straightforward as it would require an additional API call. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Take your time, and thanks for accepting feature requests from others! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 03:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you also add a feature that sets the watchlist state (if ticked) to a temporary state. This may be done with a config option through common.js with the default being permanent. I hope this is easier to implement than the reviewing. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bunnypranav that should be fairly easy to add in the next update. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bunnypranav Feel free to try out the sandbox version at User:Ahecht/sandbox/Scripts/pageswap.js. I implemented a feature I've long been meaning to, setting whether or not watchlist is checked based on user preferences, and added an expiry option as well. The dropdown defaults to "Permanent" unless you set an option using
var pagemoveWatchlistDefaultExpiry = "TIME_STRING" ("TIME_STRING" can be any value such as "3 weeks" or "7 months", as documented here). Let me know how it works for you. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does work as intended and is indeed very useful. Thanks a lot for responding to the feature request and the beautifully designed (UI and UX) script. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ahecht Unrelated note, could you also add a config option to allow template swaps for the people who know what they are doing. Thanks in advance ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bunnypranav The script allows template swaps if you are a WP:Template editor. I'll make the error message more clear. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ahecht Do you think that such automatic page swaps can be allowed for non-template editors as well (provided some manual yes I know what I'm doing checkbox/config option is ticked)? Some uncontroversial swaps at RMTR would be quicker to implement if allowed by the script. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I'm not sure I particularly love this implementation personally, since we typically discourage users from patrolling their own creations. We've been waiting on a fix for the bot that automatically patrols redirects, with the intention for it to do so for pages left behind from page movers' moves. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In the future @Bunnypranav, I'd encourage a discussion such as this to be mentioned or started at WT:NPP. We'd prefer that discussions regarding automated patrolling of pages be at least mentioned there so that anybody with relevant issues or concerns can chime in. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe just change this feature request to a "Mark both pages patrolled?" check box that defaults to unticked? That'd get the feature added, but without blanket approving everything. If we really want to take away NPP's ability to approve page swaps, we should do that in the mw:Extension:PageTriage software, but I think that'd be an additional discussion. For example, what if an NPP is not page swapping their own articles, but someone else's during the course of their NPP duties? In that case it seems like it'd be appropriate to review them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I'm not categorically against the idea, I just think something that involves pages being marked as reviewed in some capacity should be mentioned, even with just a link to the discussion, at the relevant venue. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh apologies for missing it, I'll make sure to get some community input before requesting such features from now. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bunnypranav: I know it was all with good intentions, and I think it could be a useful thing to implement. I just personally prefer the idea of it being done by bot, but smarter folks than I could probably chime in with what would be optimal route to go, which is why I typically suggest anything to do with reviewing being automated in any capacity be mentioned there. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If I implement this feature I could disable it for pages created by the mover. There could be an exception for editors with
autopatrolled, but I think in those cases a move to mainspace should automatically trigger the page getting reviewed anyway. In any case, if I do have the time to implement it, I'll post on WT:NPP first. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors with autopatrolled already have entries moved to main space marked as reviewed, this is how we end up with AfC reviewers who don't have NPP marking items as reviewed (inadvertently). But I think if we could somehow tell whether it had already been marked as reviewed and keep it as such, that'd be the best case scenario, as opposed to a blanket market of everything as reviewed if swapped. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, although User:Ahecht/Scripts/refconsolidate.js did most of the hard work. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Fram (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping for a civil discussion on the Gulf of Mexico renaming. I don't appreciate being accused of WP:OR immediately off the bat, since that doesn't apply to interpreting the plain meaning of the text in good faith when more than one meaning may be reasonable. I'd appreciate it if you'd be willing to retract that statement. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Antony-22 Would WP:SYNTH be a better description? The "Northernmost portion" text you're using is not included in any reliable source that you've cited. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not WP:SYNTH to utilize the common knowledge that the U.S. is north of the Gulf of Mexico, but if that's specifically what you're objecting to, some other wording in the article might be agreeable to both of us. But at this point, I'm happy to let others reflect on our positions in the talk page discussion. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for making the change. We're both very experienced editors, and as I said I just want to encourage a civil discussion. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your recent edit appears to have broken some things. I just noticed on pages with Taxonbars we have errors "Lua error in Module:Navbox at line 192: attempt to concatenate field 'argHash' (a nil value)." For instance see Typhloplanidae. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh someone just reverted for the same reason. KylieTastic (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @KylieTastic, Queen of Hearts: Thanks, looks like something my testcases didn't capture. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still seeing this issue with navboxes: "Lua error in Module:Navbox at line 535: attempt to get length of local 'arg' (a number value)." ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still giving an error "Lua error in Module:Navbox at line 535: attempt to get length of local 'arg' (a number value)". CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reverted again. If it's helpful, an example of a page that was giving "Lua error in Module:Navbox at line 535: attempt to get length of local 'arg' (a number value)" is Soslan Fraev. —Bkell (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Every airport article using the infbox had it. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @CambridgeBayWeather, Bkell, ThomasO1989: Okay, third time's the charm? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for protecting the Ahmed Al-Kaf page. I'll be sure to let you know if it continues to get vandalized, even after the protection period is done. (Word of advice: never underestimate association football fans :D) - OpalYosutebito (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here you said that the username Forge Partners was not promotional, but it was reported for implying shared use. I guess you may have read Forge as a verb (which it only just occurs to me is one way of seeing it), but I had read the entire name as a proper noun - the name of a group of partners; the capitalisation of Partners suggests to me that was the intent. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dorsetonian It was ambiguous enough, and the edits generic enough, that it wasn't obvious that it represented a group and not, as you said, a desire to forge partnerships. Consider discussing it with them on their talk page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thanks. If you're happy even after my clarification then I won't worry about it any further. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You made several edits to Draft:Youngstown station (New York Central Railroad) yesterday. Wikipedia moved it to DRAFT status until sources are added. If you'd like to continue to edit this article, please edit the draft until we determine it's at a level to be published. Thanks! Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|
