Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:26, 22 October 2015

Yes, the correct title of this page is "User:Scott/Talk".I've taken the unusual step of moving it to the user namespace as a preemptive defense against any future "archiving" by doomed WMF software project "Flow". I'm fundamentally opposed to Flow. It's the product of a dysfunctional organization committed, at least until recently, to hiring bargain basement-grade software engineers and then forcing their poor-quality efforts on the community of Misplaced Pages editors. The history of Flow is a drab decade of sustained failure: you can read about it in a long investigation I made and published at Wikipediocracy.Please read the introduction to my user page before requesting any administrative assistance. Thank you.

User:Scott/Talk/Tabs

Nomination for deletion of Template:Irony mark

Template:Irony mark has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Gadget850 23:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ping

User talk:Alanyst/sandbox/reliability disclaimer#Proposal

I was sorry to see the irony mark go. I thought it was gorgeous. I try to avoid irony here, so couldn't find any examples I could use it on to argue for "keep". Is that something you came up with, or is it a universal symbol? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I found one. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Resysoping

Discussion relating to my successful request for a return of access to the admin toolkit can be found at WP:BN and at WT:AC/N (those links to be converted to archive links when available).  — Scott • talk 18:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Scott,

I hope you will accept my late apology for going too far in the bureaucrat’s noticeboard discussion. My comment about attack dogs was uncalled for and is not based on evidence of any action on your part. The tangent was far away from the point I hoped to make, which though difficult, could and should have been kept civil and on the basis of good faith. I should have returned to this earlier in the week regardless of current "real life" pressures.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Fæ: very much accepted. You could have sent it to me by email, but chose to make it here. That was a big thing of you to do. Thank you.  — Scott • talk 00:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ: Quick question... would you be okay with striking the comment before it gets archived? Best wishes.  — Scott • talk 13:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Fæ (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Tools returned

Per my post at WP:BN, I have returned your tools to you. I look forward to several years of me having absolutely no cause to regret doing this. Good luck. --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. Just wait until those several years are up, then all hell's going to break loose.  — Scott • talk 13:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC) that's a joke, kids

This talk page - a request

I couldn't help noticing when I came here that you're all tangled up with your page redirects. Please could you tidy it up, perhaps using your shiny new tools? --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You're going to need to be more specific.  — Scott • talk 10:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Your talk page, conventionally, would be at User talk:Scott. There's a redirect from there. On talk pages, we visitors get a helpful "+" symbol at the top of the page to help us create new sections, which isn't present when we visit a page in someone else's userpages, like this one. I'm not sure why discomforting us helps your campaign against Flow, but I do note that a couple of weeks ago you mentioned "until I make something more convenient" and I was hoping you might be gently nudged into making something more convenient. :-) --Dweller (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The new section link can be added. –xeno 12:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, xeno; that's a magic word I wasn't familiar with. Dweller - I'll be resuscitating my talk page archives quite soon.  — Scott • talk 12:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Superduper, well done both of you. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller: Done!  — Scott • talk 18:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A40 road in London

Ah, you're back. Never seen that article before, it does look a bunch of unsourced original research duplicating several articles, but I fear if I sent it to AfD, a bunch of trolls will come out of the woodwork screaming their heads off for reasons well documented in Wikipediocracy some time back. On that note, I did think about joining the forums a while ago but never got round to it; given what's just happened to you I'm glad I didn't as it would have probably train-wrecked my RfA. Ritchie333 11:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Damnit, I thought this was about the Sidcup Bypass (A20) and got excited for a minute.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If I can think of anything exciting to write about the Sidcup Bypass (other than "well at least we haven't hit a traffic jam yet"), I'll let you know. Meanwhile, this is the reason I'm looking at Oxford Street at the mo. Ritchie333 11:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Heh!

Congratulations Ritchie, that's great news. Well, since you've gotten that out of the way, I suppose there's nothing stopping you signing up if you wanted to. I reckon you'd be a good person to have around.

And yeah, that article seems a bit dodge, especially since its creator got blocked back in 2008. I do know they say "AfD is not Articles for Improvement" but really, that happens all the time, doesn't it? If it brings it to the attention of the roads people, then at least they'll sort out any factual inaccuracies.  — Scott • talk 11:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you mentioned it on WO, but it's strange how I am not generally considered a "roads person" yet I have been in charge and done key amounts of software development for one of the largest road fan sites in the world. Must be because I take the piss too often. Ritchie333 12:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No kidding! I actually just added a SABRE link to that article.... For what it's worth, I'm firmly in the "roads are of interest" camp. There are are however a lot of problems with much of the road coverage here, in my opinion, mainly in relation to notability and detail level.  — Scott • talk 12:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am dipping my toe back into road transport articles, having racked up a few GAs like Bond Street and Piccadilly recently. I seem to recall Peter Damian complaining A466 road was crap (and having a look it just now, he's right) - I could probably rewrite it with the appropriate books, but I'm telling you now if I get any hassle over pointless roadgeek or template crap, such as what received perfectly fair criticism at WPO, I will drop it like a stone. I have more than enough other things in my life to get on with. Ritchie333 16:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ears going red Peter Damian (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting though that Bond Street was in this state until only recently. Well done. Peter Damian (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a pie!!!

Steel1943 has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Welcome back!!! I thought I was seeing things when I noticed you commenting somewhere (cannot remember where that was right now.) I saw what happened about a year or so ago, so I hope all is well ... or at least better. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Histmerges

Saw the recent one you did and ticked off at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject History Merge/01. You're right that those first couple of pages are pretty boring, but I don't mind doing them sometimes because it's basically automatic as opposed to most histmerges which require at least a little bit of thinking. Anyway, on to why I'm posting here – you might be interested in Special:MergeHistory. It only works for the really simple ones that were done by a clear cut-and-paste move and didn't have an initial redirect at the target location, but when it does fit it's much simpler than moving the pages back and forth. Jenks24 (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jenks24: Thanks! I had actually forgotten that that tool exists... I remember when it was created but not enabled for a long time, and have never actually used it. I'll give it a go on one of the early merges shortly.  — Scott • talk 14:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Procedure

requires a post here as well. Doug Weller (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If you can't see the problem with that, there's not much anyone can do for you.  — Scott • talk 12:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)