User talk:Legoktm/February 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 27 February 2017

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

  Administrator changes

  NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
  BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

  Arbitration

  Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

19:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Undelete Why Wikipedia Sucks?

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 10#Why Wikipedia Sucks → Criticism of Wikipedia resulted in "kept". However, since then, the redirect page Why Wikipedia Sucks has been deleted twice, ignoring the results of the RFD. Shall the page be retained as deleted or be resurrected as the redirect page to criticism of Wikipedia per 2008 discussion? By the way, the G4 rationale linked to the 2006 discussion, two years prior. --George Ho (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The version I deleted was most definitely vandalism. I don't have any opinion on whether it should redirect or not. Legoktm (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Your thoughts? George Ho (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator any more so I can't see the article's history, but based on the fact that the deletion rationale links to the 2006 discussion, I imagine that whoever nominated it for speedy deletion linked to that discussion in their request and I wasn't aware of the more recent discussion. It seems to me like it should be restored. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I mean the redirect I deleted should be restored, not the vandalism Legoktm deleted. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Legoktm deleted blatant vandalism. User:Malik Shabazz deleted a redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia.—CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 14:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that appears to be the case. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Misconversion of diacritics by Legobot

Hi, please see User talk:Legobot#Misconversion of diacritics. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

19:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Legobot/Rfc template interaction question

Hello. I'm asking for your help on understanding how Legobot treats Rfc templates because the template documentation doesn't seem to cover all the angles here. Specifically, when closing expired or stale Rfc's listed on AN/RFC, I seem to have tripped over provoking the bot to make unhelpful edits. Adding {{Rfc top|reason}} to an Rfc after Legobot removes a stale {{rfc|topic area}} template seems to cause Legobot to think that I'm creating a new Rfc. At least, that seems to be what is happening in cases like this. I presume that there may be a different closing Rfc template that Legobot wouldn't do this with? Is there one you'd recommend? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: After observing Legobot's behaviour for about a year now, I have been able to determine several of its actions without being able to fix (or even check) the bot's source program.
The problem here is that Legobot doesn't look for the {{rfc}} template, it looks for the three letters "rfc" (case-insensitive) preceded by two opening braces. What follows is immaterial: an RfC discussion is presumed when that five-character sequence is encountered.
The fix is to not use {{rfc top}}/{{rfc bottom}}, but instead use the redirects {{closed rfc top}}/{{closed rfc bottom}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64:, that helps immensely. Thanks for the help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Exactly why I suggested moving the template ... Pppery 19:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Moving Legobot's GA and RFC tasks

So, you asked me to start a conversation here. What would need to happen? Dat GuyTalkContribs 14:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017