User talk:DannyS712

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome

Welcome

Hello, DannyS712, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either


I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Headers and hyphenated words across pages

See [1] where I have put the page header information into the header window, and joined "project" across the previous page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: thanks. I'll do that in the future. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Reverts of purposefully disruptive editors

Please do not get into edit wars with purposefully disruptive editors. Just leave it and someone with rights will close it down and fix the issue. Revert wars leave more scars and have no winners. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I reported them to SRG, but, respectfully, I have to disagree with your thinking here - banned means banned. I only reverted twice, because I didn't want to get caught in a revert war, but in my opinion its better to revert and ignore than to let it stand and ignore. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource:News (en): September 2019 Edition

Wikisource Community Logo globe notext.svg
English Wikisource's monthly newsletter which seeks to inform all about Wikimedia's multilingual Wikisource.

Current · Archives · Discussion · Subscribe MJLTalk 23:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionCloser for CV/PD

Hey. Any interest in making a stripped-down version of DiscussionCloser for WS:CV and WS:PD? Apart from boilerplate and sanity checks and so forth, the behaviour is to add…

{{closed|Reason text string|text=

…above the thread, and…

}}
{{section resolved|1=~~~~}}

…below it. No need for anything fancy. Possibly it should check for +sysop, in which case it'd probably be best hosted as a Gadget in the related section of the Gadgets prefs, but that's hardly critical on enWS. --Xover (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: great timing; I was just getting bored. Doing... --DannyS712 (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: see User:DannyS712/Quick closer.js - I didn't implement user group checks, will probably do that soon --DannyS712 (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Works like a charm. Thanks! I'll keep using it for closes and see if any weirdness pops up. --Xover (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, some minor stuff… The script adds the "Close" links on every talk page (i.e. I see them on this page), and this should probably only be available on pages where we actually use a formal closing process like WS:CV and WS:PD, WS:S (for proposals) and WS:AN. In addition, on WS:CV and WS:PD the practice is to have a link to the page in question as the section heading, and the script doesn't strip out the link markup ([[ … ]]) when generating edit summaries or fragment identifiers. Since Mediawiki does strip these, the fragments identifiers and edit summary prefix (which is also a link, incidentally) don't work.
Other than that it's working like a charm and is probably ready for wider testing. Announce it on WS:S perhaps? I'll bet most admins will really appreciate not having to fiddle with manual closing of threads there. --Xover (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Please leave abuse in WS:AN

Please just leave the abuse in administrators' noticeboard. We will tidy it up when we see it, and we will see it. You are just adding to the game for no real return. Thanks. unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2019‎ (UTC).

@Billinghurst: I'm sorry, who do you mean by "we"? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
We = Administrators. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Good to know. I fail to understand what you mean by "adding to the game" though - abuse is there = should be removed = I boldly remove it --DannyS712 (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Which bit of my request was unclear, please keep away from WS:AN and allow administrators to manage it. I am not kidding, you are not helping. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: please revert the global ban evasion by Special:Contributions/5.173.216.63 - see wikinews:Special:Contributions/5.173.216.63 for confirmation that it is global ban evasion. I would remove it myself, but you said not to. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Mate, I have been doing this set of tasks for over ten years.

Stop feeding the troll. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, you're the one “feeding the troll" - I was removing abuse and reporting it to SRG, since its generally cross-wiki. You decided that I shouldn't remove the abuse here myself, so I'm doing the next best thing - reporting it for you to remove. I see three options for when I notice abuse here:
  1. Remove it myself
  2. Report it for someone else to remove
  3. Ignore it until someone else removes it
You told me to avoid #1, and here I tried #2. Per Wikisource:Deletion policy#General, m:Banned user, and m:Global bans#Implementing a global ban, content added by banned users should be removed, since its addition is a violation of the terms of use. Your suggestion (#3) gives the banned user the most visibility, followed by #2. #1 is the (in my view) the best option, since leaving it be or engaging in discussions about it just feeds the trolls. A different admin actually thanked me for this edit. Unless there is consensus that users who are not admins (like myself) should explicitly not remove abuse, even when they are the targets of said abuse, I will continue to try to remove it. If there is any such local policy, my apologies. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)