User talk:Magioladitis

This is Magioladitis's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Magioladitis.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

Nuclear Data[edit]

Why did you add refimprove to this page? What specifically needs citations? --Legalize (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Legalize The template was already there but with bad name. I did not add it. I only added the reflist. You may remove the tag if you want. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like there was already a References section and someone added an empty RefList section where you added the tag. I'm going to remove the section entirely as it appears to serve no purpose. You might want to consider improving the revision messages you are using. The message left was rather cryptic and doesn't seem to apply at all to this page.--Legalize (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional cosmetic edits[edit]

Please avoid edits such as [1]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary piping. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The piping is not an error, but regardless whether it is necessary or not, it is the sort of thing that should not be changed in a stand-alone edit. It seems unfortunate to me that an arbcom decision could be necessary to prevent this sort of editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Goddamn it, Magioladitis. You've got a fucking arbcom case after you for this shit. What don't you get about DON'T DO COSMETIC EDITS? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. I stop the #64 via WPCleaner too. I wonder where this stops. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb WP:NOPIPEDLINK reads: "Never use piped links to convert the first letter to lower case". -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That still doesn't make the edit, on its own, fly by WP:COSMETICBOT or WP:NOTBROKEN. Likewise Wikipedia:Piped link outline best practices, not required practices. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb Since Carl wants no bot edits to contain general fixes, how is supposed this edit to be done exactly? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Carl doesn't have monopoly on consensus, nor the ability to restrict bots from doing genfixes when they have consensus to do so (not that I agree that this is what Carl expressed as his desired outcome above). However, consider the possibility that this is maybe not an edit that needs to/should be done. Or that if it's to be done, that is should only be done as part of a substantial edit per WP:COSMETICBOT, and that such a bot would would be subject to BRFA, consensus, etc, and that bypassing these processes can get you blocked per WP:MEATBOT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb So ANY bot that does this edit as sole edit should stop? Even if there are BRFAs that support their actions? Menobot for example? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Where's Menobot's BRFA for that? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Btw, Do you see that I was doing less than 1 edit per minute, right? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MenoBot 4. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at MenoBot's edits, I don't see it doing the same ones you've been asked to stop doing. So maybe it disabled #64, or maybe it did/does it in a better way (e.g. by using clear edit summaries and a bot flag, or only when there's a larger more substantial edit to be made). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

And, as an aside, I'll point out that neither Meno25, nor his bot, are currently at ARBCOM for longstanding issues of (perceived, or real) WP:COSMETICBOT, WP:MEATBOT, or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT violations. You are. Regardless of whether it's fair or not, that invites a greater level of scrutiny. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have given all the links before. Still trying to understand if this is some consensus that changed probably without telling to the bot owners. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb Meno used error 17 as test edits. They did not mention anything on doing the edits "only when there's a larger more substantial edit to be made". I take it that these edits are OK then. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Iff you have the BRFA and consensus for it. Because right now I don't see the consensus for #64 to be done on its own by either WP:MEATBOTs or normal bots. And before you ask, yes this would apply to other bots too, not just your account or your bots. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb What you say contradicts the approved task of 3 bots (2 now after my tasks were revoked i order to be re-approved). So, I am not sure I believe you to be honest. I have read some many contradicting things all this time... -- Magioladitis (talk)

Looking at Menobot 4's trial, it's clear that #64 hasn't been tested properly. I consider that a failure of BAG to do a proper BRFA review, and I've updated our new WP:BAGG guide accordingly. Likewise, the issue of #64 being a cosmetic issue has been raised at other bots before User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 50#Another_edit. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

In the discussion linked immediately above, Bgwhite said that error #64 could cause problems with the Visual Editor. If that is still the case, then fixing instances of error #64 may not fit the definition of a cosmetic edit. Bgwhite did not link to a phab ticket, so I don't know the current status of that situation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

AFAICT, the thing was that the VE caused #64, not that #64 caused VE issues. But also error #64 seems larger than WP:NOPIPEDLINK since the VE error caused involved bad formatting/spurious bold/italics stuff. So maybe there's a non-cosmetic #64a and a cosmetic #64b in there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

My edit summary was perfect clear because I used WPCleaner. So I did ONLY and EXACTLY was was written in the edit summary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb I am happy that after a month and with the ArbCom almost closed you decide to open the real can of worms here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

We all three were/are doing general fixes in selected lists. This worked for 7 years or more. Now you make it sound that were re doing something illegal. Cool. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I proposed that over 4 weeks ago and specifically asked you to comment on it and become part of the solution. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Workshop#Proposal_by_User:Headbomb (points #4 an #5). So drop the accusations of wanting witch hunts. You're not doing something illegal, but you (referring to checkwiki bot ops) may be doing things that run against consensus despite having a BRFA for it. I even laid the blame on BAG for not conducting proper reviews, I worked to clarify the policy on cosmetic edits User:Anomie/Sandbox2, took the lead on revamping WP:BOTISSUE, etc. Cosmetic edits are contentious, and it's not just you that's going to be affected by the fallout of the ARBCOM case.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb I would be more than happy if we work a community solution. Right now everything is done under the threat of blocking and restricting because you assume that your proposal have clear consensus. My bot approvals and the other bot approvals, the CHECKWIKI project all look like something the community overlooked. This is not the ground of a fair discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb I don't say that you have bad intentions. I now that you are working for a clear solution. Sorry for the with hunt expression. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb My problem is that till now the discussion is not done centralised. I said that before the Arbom started. This tactic favors the ones who complain. The benefits of bots fixing syntax have not been supported because I think the supporters did not have the chance to do it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb Your proposal for doing things "in addition to other tasks" is something not many people support as far as I understand. There are people complaining that these edits are done anyway. Moreover, if we strip out Yobot, no bot really remains to do things "in addition to other tasks". The previous bot was SmackBot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb I guess you don't like WP:CHECKWIKI as a project that helps fixing syntax things... -- 21:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Error 64 has consensus to be done as sole edit per instructions and WP:CHECKWIKI till it is decided otherwise. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth, it's making you no friends here. As for #64, see WP:SILENCE. Silence has been broken, not only here, but in many other places, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. The onus is on the community to adjust accordingly, not to wikilawyer "BUT THIS PAGE SAYS X". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb but where is the discussion on the specific CHECKWIKI errors? Where have you been sine 2008 where the project started? It's been 9 years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb Where and is this community discussion going to happen anyway? I am confused. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb I'll take a 10 minute wikibreak because I may be not reading well what you are writing. I'll be back in 10 minutes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOLD/WP:NOTFINISHED. If none exists, start one. You're familiar with CHECKWIKI/AWB development, so you probably know what place is best to hold such a discussion on points #4/#5. I suspect WP:CHECKWIKI would be the natural place to hold it, but in involves two projects, and possibly several phabricator tickets. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb See also how many of my latest edits are actually not changing anything. There are much less that you may think. you have good AWB experience and you'll realise that. Moreover, after this edit I reported to NicoV and WPCleaner was improved. Next time all empty tags will be removed at once. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Before they are more complains today. The last run was a mistake. Some edits were only meant to verify that the issue has been fixed and not to actually fix anything. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Category redirecting to article space?[edit]

Can a category be redirected to article space? I just ran across this Category:Far-right subcultures, which is redirected to the article Far-right subcultures. That makes no sense, right? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

TheOldJacobite It makes no sense and it should be deleted. There is even a criterion for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I thought there was, it's just something I've never run across before – probably because it makes no sense. Does it meet the criteria for speedy deletion? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

TheOldJacobite Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#R2. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

No, R2 is only for redirects from mainspace. Pppery 21:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Pppery True. My mistake. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Pppery Another editor changed it to C1. I'll go with "housekeeping. Non-controversial." -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Bengali Edit summary[edit]

Hi Marios Magioladitis, I'm from Bengali wikipedia. Two months ago, on the phabricator i asked for this. but No one did not answer. Even i ased here but nobody didn't answer anything. Can you do it? If not who can? Who should i contact for this? Waiting for your answer. Thanks --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

AWB and {{Geodisambig}}[edit]

Hallo Mag... In this edit to Msila it looks as if your AWB settings didn't recognise that {{Geodisambig}} redirects to {{Geodis}} - you didn't recognise the page as a dab page so called it a stub and an orphan. PamD 22:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

PamD I fixed it. Thanks for the heads up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well this is awkward[edit]

So I literally couldn't help but notice a bunch of very automated-looking edits that also overlap with what some might consider a violation of WP:COSMETICBOT (for example, [2] (the one I stumbled across while patrolling WP:AN3), as well as several others: [3] [4] [5] [6], ...). The overall pattern also suggests to me a lack of manual supervision, too. It's admittedly very frustrating to have to even post this, as I thought prior issues related to Yobot actually probably were at least partly related to ambiguity in COSMETICBOT interpretations. To an outside observer, this seems to suggest that despite you now knowing people object to edits like these—despite an open arbitration case surrounding it—you still went ahead and kept on doing them anyway under your main account. Does there happen to be a really good reason for doing so that I'm not aware of, and/or is a task already approved/in-trial somewhere that wasn't cited in your edit summaries? If so, then my apologies for even bringing this up in the first place; it would significantly help to reduce anxiety and stress if everyone knows what's going on. --slakr^\ talk / 02:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Slakr The matter was recently discussed at User_talk:Magioladitis/Archive_32#Invisible_character_edits. Moreover, I think this is one of most clear edit summaries (!!!) since I do what I say: I remove invisible characters. :) You can't see them but there were there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you stop doing these kind of edits on your main account and apply for bot approval to carry them out. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

MSGJ and then have people complaining that the bot should only do this edit without general fixes? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

And there is also a limitation of how many BRFAs I can have open. Ofcourse I want everything to be done by bot. In fact this task is part of CHECKWIKI. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

What you should take from this is 1) wait for existing BRFAs to resolve 2) in the meantime be patient and let others deal with the more contentious CHECKWIKI fixes, the world will not end if some CHECKWIKI errors aren't resolved overnight. I would also add 3) Wait for the WP:COSMETICBOT RFC before making edits (both through your main account, and through bots) that meet the current working definition of a cosmetic edit "edits that do not change the visual appearance of a page". If you have a specific BRFA approval for a specific type edit that "doesn't change the visual appearance of a page", only do those via bots with a clear link to the BRFA and other documentation/rationale (such as a link to the specific Checkwiki error/genfix). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb Minor comment: changing non-breaking spaces it also changes the visual appearance. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

In some very specific instances. For example, in 10 kg, I haven't put a non-breaking space. It will take a rather extreme zoom levels to make that space break and create a visual difference. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Or it would take reading it on a smartphone, which is not exactly an extreme situation, or having a somewhat narrower browser window than yours. You don't have to have the "10" and the "kg" fill the entire width to end up with a line break accidentally falling between the two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb I don't understand why you try to put a priority of the things fixed and consequently to the things I want to fix. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The 'priority', if you want to call it that, is that right now (rightly or wrongly) there's a lot of controversy surrounding 1) your edits 2) your interpretation of what consensus means with respect WP:MEATBOT/WP:COSMETICBOT 3) the level of consensus certain CHECKWIKI/AWB fixes have 4) how tightly your edits need to be controlled/restricted.

There is a spectrum of which goes from

Uncontroversial<---3---2---1---0---1---2---3--->Controversial

Right now, the community wants you to stick to the extreme left side of the above spectrum. This should be fairly obvious, both from the amount of messages concerning cosmetic/cosmetic-like edits you receive, from the ARBCOM proceedings, from your BAG re-confirmation RFC, and the general exasperation from the community. When controversial, or potentially controversial edits are concerned, done from either a bot account or from your main account in a bot-like, or potentially seemingly bot-like, get community consensus for those edits first.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb Two sections ave I have people arguing these edits are useful. My time in editing has increasing dramatically during the last month. What my bot used to do now I am forced to do manually which takes a lot of hours of my life If you notice, bug reports and bug fixing in AWB is not happening lately an CHECKWIKI stopped updating. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hence my advice to be patient, and focus your efforts on points 4/5 of this, and/or non-controversial edits. You are not 'forced to do anything', there is no deadline. I fear you're on the verge of a wikiburnout. Take a breath, relax, focus on things you know have widespread community support. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You could also tackle phabricator tickets like T100443, T11790 and many others in [7]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb In contrary I have the feeling that many people suffer with the same syndrome with the people who just tag pages. They have an idea of what they would like to be done but they don't actually do it. AWB, CHECKWIKI and all the things I have participated here in Wikipedia have been years around. Still some people would like a better software, a better detection, etc. but they don't actually help in doing those. I am actually interested in fixing pages. Al the other were always the result of this interest. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Were I be able to code for AWB, I would, because I don't like to rely on others to do things I want to be done. However, I also recognize my skills are awful, and I wouldn't know where to even begin to implement something like "T158577" in AWB. You probably can, even though you certainly don't have to, implement this. If you did, then it wouldn't be just you/Yobot fixing edit window clutter, but ~70 bot and ~2,200 users.

It's great and laudable that you want to fix pages and have the technical skills to do so. I have fought to the best of my ability to keep you part of the community and the AWB/CHECKWIKI process because I think you do more good than harm. But right now the community doesn't trust you to unilaterally decide (or decide following local consensus on a low-traffic page) what has or doesn't have consensus. Emotions are high, so let the dust settle, let the community build better guidance on cosmetic issues, and let others decide if certain edits are or are not contentious. While that happens, either work on improving the software, which will benefit everyone using AWB, or on fixing pages which are clearly and uncontroversial broken. From a quick glance, anything with "Medium"/"High" in WP:CWERRORS is uncontroversial as far as I'm concerned, although not all of them are suitable for bots (e.g. #58 needs human review since some of those instances can be legit). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"Be patient while emotions are high" sounds a lot like "Some editors' emotions are more urgent to me than millions of readers getting served slightly broken pages". While I support the focus on social and community issues here, I hope that we can at least agree that, among the diversity of editors here in this enormous community, not every editor needs to believe that the emotions felt by editors are more important than the experiences that readers get (or "don't get", when these errors garble a critical part of a page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a matter of putting people's feelings above 'slightly broken pages', it's giving people respite so we can focus on clarifying what needs to be clarified with cool heads, and determine what actually is 'broken enough to warrant an edit' and what 'isn't broken enough to warrant an edit'. Cosmetic edits are by definition things that aren't broken at all. This changes nothing to what anyone sees, reads, prints, or hears. But it annoys the hell out of people because of the very real opportunity costs, to the point that we're at ARBCOM over it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

If you will forgive me for being quite literal, this is exactly a matter of putting some editors' emotions ahead of fixing some slightly broken pages. You are quite literally asking for these editors' emotions to be processed first, and for Magioladitis to process the broken pages second.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with you. I am, however, saying that the decision to deal with the significant social issues among a small number of editors first, and the small effects on millions of readers second, is a question of personal values. Different people have different values, and those values might lead them to a different decision about what to address first.

(The opportunity cost smells like a red herring; it seems to assume that if Magioladitis is stopped from doing unwanted-X, then he will instead do wanted-Y rather than nothing at all, or even-more-unwanted-Z, etc.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The opportunity cost refer to the opportunity cost of reviewing those edits, cluttering page histories, and so on. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

(passing comment) "opportunity cost" -> "maintenance burden with finite resources" (more like cost/benefit? unless this is about some alternative edits Magioladitis could have done instead). Widefox; talk 11:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb, perhaps you chose a bad example, but your assertion that this "changes nothing to what anyone sees, reads, prints, or hears." is incorrect. You can see the explanation, and the example by User:BU Rob13 at User_talk:Magioladitis/Archive_32#Invisible_character_edits as well as in this screenshot linked by Rob in that discussion. But I agree with you that Magioladitis would be wise to stick with the left side of the spectrum you provided above. Mojoworker (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That specific edit changes nothing on any browser, in any condition. Load both versions of the page up and you'll see. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Mojoworker, here is the mobile view of that edit, where it appears that two spaces were removed. Does that make a difference to anyone? I hope M will avoid cosmetic-only edits "broadly construed", and anything that could be perceived as boundary-testing, to show that he understands the concerns, even if he doesn't agree with them. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, it makes a difference to the next hapless editor who comes along and adds any content immediately following the characters in question...and then wonders why the formatting is messed up when they view it on their phone, thinking that they did something wrong. The invisible character issue (especially when those characters are at the end of a line as in this example) is a sticky one, but it's my firm belief that it's constructive to remove them. However I share your concerns about Magioladitis pushing the boundaries and would also advise him to be more patient. Mojoworker (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Mojoworker, we had a similar discussion on this page recently, and I viewed several of the examples on a phone and laptop using different browsers, and I couldn't see any difference in read mode. I asked "in what circumstances will a reader notice a difference, and what would that difference be?", but received no answer. Can you tell me what the difference might be—messed up in what way? What would happen if someone were to make an edit next to an invisible character?

It seems to me that the definition of a cosmetic-only edit might include that you have to go to a special site to see it, and no one can explain what difference it makes. But because editors disagree in threads like this, M is led to believe that what he's doing is okay. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You already got your answer. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

M, the two main issues with your edits have been the thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of cosmetic-only edits, and the failure to communicate clearly when people ask about them. Admins have to be able and willing to explain what they're doing, whether they're taking admin actions or editing. To reply "you already got your answer" doesn't help. Clearly I didn't, or I didn't see it, or I didn't understand it, so enlighten me, please. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I made a contrived extreme example in my sandbox here (copied from the Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas article we've been discussing) to show the affect the invisible character has on line breaking and to make the problem more obvious. You can drag your browser window narrower to see the problem (not splitting the line between "Antidisestablishmentarianism" and "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"). In the next diff in my sandbox I remove the invisible character. Here is a screenshot of that diff. This is a screenshot of what the problem looks like in the browser. This is what it should look like (and does after the invisible character is removed). Mojoworker (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I created a better step by step illustration of the problem, with example edits and summaries here. Mojoworker (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I am still a Wikipedia:WikiGnome. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV Screenshot and policy provided. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The question is about this edit. In what circumstances would a reader notice those two invisible characters, and what difference would they notice? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: In short, when invisible characters are at the end of lines or in blank lines, they can not influence rendering. (Noting this primarily because I defended these sorts of edits in the past, so I want to be clear my defense does not extend to this particular edit.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: True, but that doesn't mean the invisible characters should just be left there to trip up the unwary editor who adds onto the line (as I detailed above). Sure, Magioladitis could probably add code (or change his regex or whatever) to inhibit making the edit if it's at the end of a line, but that seems overly pedantic – why go through the extra work when the invisible characters really shouldn't be there at all. It really is a constructive edit and isn't merely cosmetic. If it were any editor other than Magioladitis would we be questioning these edits? Mojoworker (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes we probably would, becasue on Wikipedia everything gets questioned - part of our strength as a community, and also part of our weakness. However I must concur with the majority here, that while I would not get unduly excited if these "corner case" edits weren't done, it seems obtuse to deliberately code to make leave traps for the unwary in articles. Given that this is self evident, and if it weren't has been explained and illustrated in detail, it would be a good point in the proceedings to ask those who persist in opposing these edits to drop the stick and walk away, preferably far, far away.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC).

Ashtoret lunaris[edit]

Hi there, we had an edit conflict on the page Ashtoret lunaris when I was expanding the article, I had to overwrite your edits so you may need to go back to repeat them, as well as do whatever it is you do to the rest of the text (I can never see the edits). Quetzal1964 12:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC) User talk:Quetzal1964

User:Quetzal1964 It's OK. I redid the edit! Thanks for the kind message. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Need help[edit]

Hi Magiloladitis. I am Thapene, new comer. I just made an article namely Ban Thapene, about one village in Luang Prabang, Laos. Thanks for your contribution so far. I would also like your help to further review this article for approval. Best. Thapene — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banthapenlaos (talk • contribs) 06:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Central America[edit]

Hi Magioladitis! In this edit you changed {{WikiProject Panama}} to {{WikiProject Central America}} under the Panama task force, but the Panama task force has been migrated into a full WikiProject of its own so the task force parameters for {{WikiProject Central America}} are no longer supported. Do you know if this requires an update to AWB? Kaldari (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think me and Stevietheman fixed it. Kaldari (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yobot[edit]

(Old-ish) bug report - does Yobot still incorrectly add a ref section to dab pages e.g. [8] ? Regards Widefox; talk 00:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Widefox Wow. Thanks for the report. It has already been fixed :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, quick response. Sorry I only checked the bots chat history. Widefox; talk 00:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Widefox Anytime. Many bugs slip out. We should catch them all! It better than catching Pokemon :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

2012 Hypothesis - hmmm, "all" ? How about my 2017 Hypothesis "the number of dabs with {{confused}} hatnotes will increase linearly" ? Widefox; talk 00:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Widefox That's a good hypothesis too. I wonder if we can create a Moore's law analog and predict when the hatnotes will double. Magioladitis-Widefox Confused Law of Hats. hm... sounds cool... -- Magioladitis (talk)

How about organising the Laws of Confused Hats:

0th Every article evolves until it gains a hatnote.

1st Disambiguation scales On^2 with articles.

2nd Every disambiguation page evolves until it gains a hatnote.

3rd The desire for disambiguation disambiguation is notable, leading to a new article (see 0th), plus potential for disambiguation from Disambiguation (disambiguation). Widefox; talk 01:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Widefox I wonder if you could open an essay for that! -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah an essay would be fun. The inspiration being Zawinski's law of software envelopment. Widefox; talk 18:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: Where could we post this? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Widefox and I thought the numbering was inspired by Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Numbering from languages C/Python, turns out we have an article Zero-based numbering (no hatnote = 0th level), but I was attempting (and current numbering failed to do this)..to have 0th level = data, 1st level= metadata, 2nd level = meta meta. Widefox; talk 18:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are aware but I am attempting to write a trifling monograph about Wikipedia, entitled Disambiguation (disambiguation). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC).

Draft User:Widefox/Laws of hats Widefox; talk 04:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)