Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:28, 10 January 2024

slakr's life is currently frolicking with chaos, so his activity and response times to queries will be highly variable. Leave a message and he will respond whenever he gets a chance— that is, assuming he gets a chance. Cheers =) zOMG!!! I need urgent assistance!!!1!! — banana? — kiwi?

Ideally, please use this link to post new messages at the bottom. If you can't find something you recently posted, I might have moved it down there or it could have been archived if you posted it over 7 days ago. Cheers :)

Click here to start a new talk topic

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Regarding slakr: Why did my page get deleted? Please see Misplaced Pages:Why was my page deleted? first. I have no idea what you're talking about. What's vandalism? If you received a warning from me and you're not logged in, you might have gotten an old warning I sent to someone who shares your IP address. On the other hand, if you've made recent edits and received a recent warning message from me and you genuinely believe that it's not vandalism, don't fret-- simply drop me a message below, because I could have simply made a silly mistake. :) Regarding SineBot: Why does SineBot keep signing stuff I've already signed? All comments should have a signature that includes both a link to your user page (slakr) and a datestamp (05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)) (per signatures - internal links). This is most easily generated by placing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your contributions, which makes something like "slakr 05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)". If you have an interwiki-linked user page, consider either creating a user page on enwiki that redirects to your preferred home wiki or simply opting out of automatic signing. If you're still having problems after trying that, post a message below. Be sure to include diffs to make sure I can reference the problem. I don't want my comments signed by SineBot. How do I get it to ignore me or my talk page? Please use one of the opt-out methods listed on its user page. SineBot forgot to sign something it should have signed. Usually this happens because the bot isn't sure if it really should sign something, so it defaults to not signing it (e.g., in cases of complex edits). It does this to avoid being annoying. Other times, a comment might be made when the bot is down for maintenance, so the bot simply never sees it. SineBot signed something that it genuinely should not have signed. Please let me know-- especially if you think it's not a one-time thing. Be sure to include diffs to make sure I can reference the problem. Is SineBot's source code available? Not currently. I'm signing with four tildes (~~~~) but it's still saying I didn't! You likely enabled raw signatures. Open your preferences, click the "User profile" tab, make sure that "Treat the above as wiki markup" is NOT checked, and click Save; it should be fixed. If you have an interwiki-linked user page, consider either creating a user page on enwiki that redirects to your preferred home wiki or simply opting out of automatic signing.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

3RR report update

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that User:Kuia34 made another revert masked under an edit summary of "adding maintenance tags" , after your decision. I was redirected away from making another report, so I figured out messaging your talk page would be the best option. Also another diff which I forgot to mention, where user creates a talk page "box" to promote his opinion on the exact, ongoing content issue . Kate the mochii (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Your report was removed by Bbb23 for a reason let it go

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diff=1162884320&oldid=1162884206

Most of the edits you were reporting me for were already from yesterday too. Kuia34 (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the reason was "duplicate report". Kate the mochii (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a duplicate report because most of the edits you reported me for was from yesterday. You refuse to remove things from the article because they go against your own personal opinion and ignore multiple sources and when your called out you try and report me??? Kuia34 (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is a list of all your (section-blanking) reverts. There are in fact 4 in 24 hours.

15:07 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multiplicity_(subculture)&oldid=1162865610 (hidden as "adding maintenance tags")

23:07 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multiplicity_(subculture)&oldid=1162751609

16:49 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multiplicity_(subculture)&oldid=1162697519

13:28 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multiplicity_(subculture)&oldid=1162667467

12:06 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multiplicity_(subculture)&oldid=1162656320 Kate the mochii (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

4/5 are BEFORE 23:42, 30 June 2023 which is aprox when you reported me(not to mention some os these edits are actually the exact same ones you reported me for yesterday)The only edit that is AFTER you reported me is https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multiplicity_(subculture)&oldid=1162865610

I explained why I removed it on the noticeboard so I'll just copy and paste it here :

"the reason I removed that section is because we talked about it and you said you would implement the changes but you never implemented it so I decided to do it . https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AMultiplicity_%28subculture%29&diff=1162863714&oldid=1162863154(this is where you claimed you implemented it) for context this is some of the stuff I asked them about that they claimed to implement but didn't do : https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AMultiplicity_%28subculture%29&diff=1162799600&oldid=1162799519 " Kuia34 (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have brought up two additional diffs (one I missed which proves three revert rule violation, and another with a disingenuous edit summary and that is literally hours after the noticeboard post).

I will stop replying to you from now on. Kate the mochii (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That's fine but don't forget to remove the stuff relating to the general DID community that isn't in reference to the multiplicty subculture since you have yet to get source to support your claims and you continue to be disingenuous and edit the article to fit your own opinion on some online discourse at that.......... Kuia34 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Don't bludgeon the process Misplaced Pages:Casting aspersions Kate the mochii (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not Misplaced Pages:Don't bludgeon the process I just type alot and even though I keep explaining to you what the topic is you keep saying that my claim is something else so then I have to come back and correct you as to what my actual claim is and then the process repeats. As for Misplaced Pages:Casting aspersions your right some of the comments I've made were a bit much and I could have brought them up better in a slightly more civil manner. Kuia34 (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Close

Excellent close here. I wish all closers were so thorough and evenhanded (even if I think most parties would have preferred some kind of consensus being reached this time around). Thanks for not supervoting to manufacture one. I think an eventual RfC 3 will iron this out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to concur with McCandlish; I think you very fairly summarized the positions. Unfortunately, two of the involved editors are now edit warring to introduce substantially the same language into the MoS section despite the close. After being reverted twice, BilledMammal is now seeking to undertake further discussion on the talk (as they honestly should have from the start under the circumstances), but despite that discussion having already gotten underway, LokiTheLiar has chosen to force the language back in. I've tried to explain why I think this is problematic, very much out of process, and likely to frustrate a community already fatigued with issues around this language further, but Loki at least seems unconvinced.

I really have no inclination to take the matter to ANI (and lack the time even if I did), but I'm certain that's where this is headed if someone doesn't intercede quickly and get Loki to understand that this is not how consensus proceeds in such circumstances. Again, BilledMammal seems to have already slowed their roll and committed to discussing. I wasn't sure what the best option was if trying to avoid ANI, but I figured the admin who closed might be the most logical first top.

Jayron32, I'm not sure that Slakr is about just now, so I hope you will forgive me for notifying you as well, as the only other admin I know is aware of the previous discussion and the slow moving edit war. This feels like a potential tinderbox. I'm trying to decide right now whether to add a notice below the original discussion. On the one hand, I think the community perhaps should be informed about the result of the discussion being disregarded. One the other, I'd love to give the editor in question an opportunity to hear from someone else that they are beyond the EW line and stand down before really getting themselves stuck in a bad place. Unfortunately, their responses on the MoS talk page are not encouraging me to feel that is likely. Thoughts? If neither one of you wants wrangle this issue (which would be understandable), I'll simply leave a notice below the closed discussion about what is going on, and the community can sort the matter out. SnowRise 22:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I left the notice at WP:VPP: I made pretty voluminous efforts (as have a number of other editors) to explain to BM and Loki why further discussion and consensus was necessary before adding this language to the MoS, especially in light of the scale of the previous discussions and the controversial nature of the proposed additions. And to explain why edit warring is not an acceptable way to enforce their preferred version regardless of the circumstances. But as of this moment, the response has been a bunch of IDHT. I'm not interested in getting into the dispute any deeper, but I felt the community ought to be made aware that the close is being disregarded.

That said, if either one of you feels, in your administrative capacity, that there is a better way to accomplish that oversight purpose, you have my full blessings and encouragement to remove the notice. Personally I don't have the inclination, nor especially the time, to push the behavioural issues to AE, ANI, or ANEW, but it feels like it is headed in that direction, unfortunately. And despite my attempts on the Mos talk page to encourage discussion over edit warring, I think at least Loki is only more entrenched as a result of my observations. BM is somewhat ambivalent to the feedback of myself and others, but is discussing rather than trying to force the changes at this juncture. Please ping me if I can clarify anything about the chain of events: otherwise I am washing my hands of the matter before it gets any more disruptive. SnowRise 06:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I participated in an earlier discussion on the same topic, so consider myself involved from an administrative point of view, so I will refrain from acting in this regard on this discussion. Sorry! --Jayron32 11:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

No, not at all, Jayron: that's clearly the right call in the circumstances. I knew you hadn't contributed to the most recent RfC, but I didn't think to cntrl-f the first one. And admin with the ban hammer isn't necessarily the only option here in any event. It would be more useful to find somebody with credibility among those who !voted support in the RfC, who might be able to convince Loki (and to a lesser extent, BM) to slow their roll a little, rather than charging ahead. The most frustrating part about this is that the new language might be a viable compromise that enough of a consensus could get behind, in an open community discussion. But with this approach of trying to individually force the language into the page, by edit warring if needs be (a strategy that is never going to be tolerated longterm by the community, in this context) they are actually undermining that consensus that they will ultimately have to seek. Acting this way is just not going to do them any favours at the outset of that ultimate discussion, which is sure to be a close run thing. SnowRise 11:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: No prob =)

@Snow Rise: Although it's a bit late of a reply (and it might be stating the obvious), but you probably don't need to try to hunt down an in-the-loop admin / closer if people start edit warring on a policy page; it's usually evident to onlookers, someone else will probably discover it, and/or you can point it out at AN3/ANI/RFPP, as you already mentioned. I usually sort of naturally avoid taking any ancillary action on a subject after a close (unless something obvious needs doing specifically from me, like a page protection); I effectively go into them uninvolved and leave uninvolved... besides, large closes are exhausting in and of themselves and by the end I'm typically completely done with reading about the subject for a while. :P

--slakr 04:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a perfectly fair tact for an admin (or any closer for that matter) to want to take, and this may be the first time I've ever brought such a matter to closing admin's attention in this fashion, but I think consulting you as closer was a logical first step in resolving the issue in the circumstances: I was observing editing of a policy page starting the very day of your close of a centralized community RfC of massive scope rejecting substantially the same proposed language, and felt someone with advanced permissions ought to have eyes on that situation. At the same time, I felt an ANX filing would have been an impractical and arguably unfair escalation that would have accomplished little other than to ramp up the temperature of the affair further and become a time sink for the community.Thankfully, after a certain amount of discussion and additional community voices chiming in, the editors in question went back to the drawing board for a new proposal, which I think in time may ultimately create some resolution to this perennial issue--so all's well that ends well. :) SnowRise 10:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi

Dear @Slakr,
My name's Ayoub I'm an Editor from The ArabicWiki, Firstly Thank you for everthing you do. I just want to ask if there is a posibility to learn me how can i creat a bot just like SineBot nd let it add unsinged template to unsingned comments in arwiki. Peace.-- أيوب (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Human Antiviral for FIV Relief...?

I just want to check if any studies are out there for antiviral meds made for Humans have been able to help FIV positive symptoms and alleviate or help lessen negative effects of the virus? Please... I'm not looking for a miracle, just a little help. 2600:1002:A102:1B95:3656:86CD:4386:728C (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@2600:1002:A102:1B95:3656:86CD:4386:728C: Sorry for the late response; been busy IRL. So I'm not a vet or doctor and this isn't medical advice, but I do have an FIV+ cat, so your question, of course, hits close to home. However, as a retrovirus (and specifically, a Lentivirus (so, same genus as HIV), the chances are pretty good anything that broadly affects retroviral and/or specifically lentiviral lifecycles could be good candidates. The downside, of course, is that FIV itself (much like HIV) doesn't directly cause the worst symptoms; usually the primary infection is nothing more than some flu symptoms that go away. It's what comes after the immune system is lowered. For example, in humans, HIV can lead to a condition where another virus causes Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), and once KS is established—even if HIV is brought entirely under control—the cancer that KS causes also has to be brought under control entirely separately (and, sadly, usually unsuccessfully; once you have disseminated KS, it's unlikely you'll live much longer). Similar situations can no doubt arise in felines with secondary infections.

Complicating things further, cats frequently have very different (and usually worse) tolerances for drugs than humans. A substance that humans can readily metabolize with their livers (or excrete with their kidneys) may be impossible for cats to handle and cause far more damage. For example, one of the now-PREP drugs involved in Truvada was/is used for antiviral purposes (hence why it's so useful for PREP). That drug is specifically bad for humans when they have pre-existing problems with their kidneys, so cats (notorious for eventual kidney problems, probably due to a high-protein diet) might be even more severely affected (I don't actually know; I'm just speculating). Long story short, treating/preventing HIV in humans can be problematic on its own, and the cross-species issues with physiology can be similarly so.

So I guess my answer is a "probably, but I have no idea, and I'd be extremely careful and instead enjoy what time you had/have left. Failing that, contact some vets and researchers that specialize in this sort of thing, if you can find them." You can try google scholar (), but without a huge nerdy medical background, I probably wouldn't recommend trying to parse through it without expert help (it is extremely difficult to avoid scams and fake/bad/dangerous research if you aren't an expert).

I know it sucks. It really does. And I know it's not the answer you wanted to hear. Every day I worry about whether some random thing I bring inside might be the one thing that she can't handle, but it just makes every moment I do have with her that much more special. And if humans are indeed a benchmark in the immunodeficiency realm, me/us simply providing her/them a calm, stress-free environment to live in (rather than her former life on the streets) has kept her alive far longer than she ever would have been otherwise. I try to count that was a win, even though I know our time might be shorter than it would have been had she been completely healthy.

Hope that helps in some small way. I genuinely wish I could be an expert in all things everything (and especially this), but, well, ya know.... :P

Best of luck. *hugs* =)

--slakr 02:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

BAG membership

Hello. You are listed as a member of the Bot Approvals Group but it appears you may not be actively helping in this area anymore. Do you intend to return to BAG-related activity on Misplaced Pages, or are you happy to be removed from this list? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I have now removed your name from the list of active BAG members. Thanks and best wishes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)