I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama
To remove the sandbox link add #pt-sandbox { display: none; }
(or li#pt-sandbox {display: none;}
for MonoBook users) to your common.css page.
To prevent the "Your edit was saved" message add .postedit { display: none; }
to your personal CSS.
To prevent site notices add #siteNotice { display:none; }
to your personal CSS.
To prevent the MediaViewer follow these instructions
Use {{Reflist|30em}} instead of {{Reflist|2}}
Case comment
Hi SilkTork. Just as an FYI in response to your comment at the recent case request, dispute resolution was already tried quite a bit on the talk pages; Feyd finally conceded to the content others wanted over at Insect, but then went over to Decline in insect populations to repeat the same issues where others already commented too (and I've talked to them about WP:POVFORK too). I'll definitely admit the talk page is a mess from trying work through various issues with them. The main issue though was the violation of discretionary sanctions through aspersions I mentioned in my case comment. Normally once editors start doing that, they are topic banned from the topic at AE (I've lost count of how many we've had to do this for now), so that would be the next dispute resolution step as I said I was planning to pursue before I saw this case. Given the recent violation at an actual case filing though, is it better to wait for you all to decide on something, or is such behavior at a case request supposed to be handled as DS violations at AE instead? It's a bit of an out of the ordinary process question compared to situations when we've had to deal with editor violating the principle. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is always better to wait until one formal discussion ends before opening a new one elsewhere. So wait until this case request is dismissed before starting a new dispute resolution discussion elsewhere. The exception to that is it would be permissible (and a good idea) if you and FeydHuxtable talked together to clarify your points of disagreement, so if you are to raise this at any other venue, you are able to give folks there a much clearer idea of what it is you want. Though you may find in talking openly, politely, reasonably, and with commitment to FeydHuxtable, that you are both able to find a way forward. After all, you both want the same thing - to improve information on insects on Wikipedia so readers will be accurately and neutrally informed. SilkTork (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer on procedure, and that's kind of what I suspected. As for the rest you mentioned, that had already been tried extensively across multiple talk pages. I wasn't about to give a blow by blow there, especially due to the word limit. Combine that with the battleground behavior and violating the GMO/pesticide DS, and we're kind of at the point where reasonable routes have been exhausted and the DS need to be enforced instead despite holding back on that option. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Abbreviation of "St" in church articles.
Hello, I need to ask you to, at least for the time being, cease your current wholesale changing of article names for churches to include a full stop after "St". Such mass changes of this kind without first seeking some consensus among the Wikipedia community is likely to only cause conflict and other problems with those editors, such as myself, who follow the now well-established and usual British English style for Britain-focused articles which is to not use the full stop in this way. The MOS on such matters is somewhat in conflict with itself on this matter and it requires clarification on the appropriate MOS talk pages. Can we try to do in this a constructive way please. Thank you. Anglicanus (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed - the MOS probably needs to recognise an ENGVAR difference here as well as in place names. Johnbod (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- SilkTork and Johnbod : I've raised this matter at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. Please also comment there if you wish. This matter needs clarification. Thanks. Anglicanus (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the note Anglicanus; I hadn't realised that restoring the dot in St. Paul's, Deptford would be controversial as I was following the usage as outlined in our guides MOS:POINTS and WP:CHURCH. I will take part in Johnbod's linked discussion. SilkTork (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
RfPP
Can you please consider actioning this request. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 23:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a reason for protection. Can you explain further? SilkTork (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- THe IP is changing years active, children field a couple times, and also making unsourced claime here: Alan Tudyk - FlightTime (open channel) 23:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- That is annoying, but the edits are minor and few, and meanwhile there are positive edits on those articles by other IPs. We tend to only protect an article (which prevents edits by all IPs) if there is evidence of long term abuse by IPs. You are doing the right thing in quickly reverting them. The person behind the edits is using the Spectrum cable service in Columbus, but their IP address is not fixed, so blocking them wouldn't be effective, and I know nothing about range-blocks. Quickly reverting them is a good approach because that way they will soon get fed up of making their petty edits, and go do something else. SilkTork (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I've already reverted three times. - FlightTime (open channel)
New articles
Now that I'm over half way to my next appeal date I think we should start discussing some possibilities. I have listed some at User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks that could be done with a bot. My main priority is creating missing (current) parishes. While I don't expect that (providing a disclose the editing restriction) anyone would have a problem with me organizing a bot request to create new articles with the current restrictions, I think it would be best to wait until my page move restrictions are removing since the new articles would probably involve lots of page moves to (such as disambigating existing articles that conflict with the new articles and the new articles would likely need moving to).
Given that it might take a while to organize and approve that it might make sense to propose it in a month or so, since that would give about 2 months until the approximate time (mid July) that my restrictions would likely be changed.
Adding the census data to existing articles is probably more difficult than creating new articles (for a bot). But I believe that bots are more reliable and there's less risk of human error etc even though some editors dislike bot page creation, as long as I demonstrate that articles with reasonable content that is more efficiently done with a bot there's no reason why this couldn't be done. (new bot article example) (existing article example).
If we manage to create new articles with bots then I would have far less of a problem with the editing restrictions since that would remove the need to create obviously notable topics and mean that those that are less obvious (and require manual creation) could be done with approval. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- And for reference there's Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BotMultichill 9 (see List of listed buildings in Kilbarchan, Renfrewshire for example) which could used as an example for the listed buildings in England. The only problem which I can see with those articles (which isn't much of a problem, never mind being one to merit not doing it) is that the articles include unnecessary disambiguation (there are no other uses of Kilbarchan, never mind places that have listed buildings). You can see from here that the English Wikipedia doesn't have many bot-created articles but I have faith that its a good idea to do so. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think you would likely encounter resistance to the notion of creating articles with a bot. I am not interested in assisting you with that. I suggest you look elsewhere for advice and assistance. SilkTork (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- There are users who have done this before (the other example is User:Rambot) who probably know a lot more about this and would be able to assist. As far as the actual contributions go an experienced bot operator (not me) would probably run the bot (which would obviously be done after community consensus). While the edits to existing articles (again with community approval) might be done with a script created by another user (since I don't have the understanding of how to do this and the community would probably not trust me to do so anyway in addition to the fact that I wouldn't feel confident creating/editing the script myself) but then I or another person (or bot) could preform the actual edits. My main concern with the current situation as noted with creating new articles is that I would likely also need to move existing articles. If the community aren't going to remove the page moving restriction in a reasonable amount of time I might just have to make do anyway but I don't see why the move restrictions will likely remain in place since I don't believe there's a significant concern currently and most of the undiscussed moves I would probably make are just housekeeping. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think you would likely encounter resistance to the notion of creating articles with a bot. I am not interested in assisting you with that. I suggest you look elsewhere for advice and assistance. SilkTork (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)