User talk:TheDaveRoss

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
A bot400:37, 7 February 2016
Thanks!315:49, 6 February 2016
How do you find templates with unclosed noinclude tags?115:48, 6 February 2016
Big Bend State etc.512:33, 27 January 2016
meanie weenie = DaDavewoss117:50, 18 January 2016
Your edits with a bot flag115:04, 15 January 2016
Module errors in translations315:12, 14 January 2016
Undo217:03, 13 January 2016
citations123:52, 12 January 2016
Chuck Entz009:41, 7 January 2016
cx vs. context509:46, 28 December 2015
Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December023:34, 15 September 2015
Kephir dispute resolution712:24, 23 May 2015
{{reflist}}416:12, 9 March 2015
wallaby208:26, 29 August 2014
Why'd ya make the Andrewsarchus extinct again?021:10, 14 October 2013
New England116:11, 13 August 2013
Re:SemperBlotto "Nah" deletion022:26, 21 November 2011
Template:WS:rfvBP121:56, 31 October 2011
Spanish bot113:37, 25 October 2011
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Would you consider creating one?

kc_kennylau (talk)00:17, 7 February 2016

What do you mean? I have a bot account User:TheDaveBot and I have some software which I use for semi-automated and automated editing. Is there some specific task you think I should do or is it just for flood prevention?

TheDaveRoss00:19, 7 February 2016

Just flood prevention. Maybe such task would be done by the bot next time. I can also flood-flag your account.

kc_kennylau (talk)00:28, 7 February 2016

I do use a flood flag for some things, I thought that making changes to so many templates was best to do in a way that everyone could see the changes, since templates have such a big impact on so many pages. Sorry about the flooding, but it is all done now.

TheDaveRoss00:32, 7 February 2016

It's alright.

kc_kennylau (talk)00:37, 7 February 2016

Thank you for closing all the noinclude tags! Are you also checking includeonly tags? I know there's a fair number of documentation pages that don't close them.

CodeCat17:40, 5 February 2016

The current script is just looking for noincludes, I am hoping to circle back to the includeonlys after these are done. I assume that some of them will require more discernment than these ones do, so I might end up categorizing the ones which are complicated so that experts can finish up the tricky ones.

TheDaveRoss17:43, 5 February 2016

Also came here to say thank you for adding the closing noinclude tags. Your work is much appreciated. (There's also onlyinclude, but I'm not sure that those are ever unclosed.)

WikiTiki8921:51, 5 February 2016

It looks like unclosed onlyincludes are much rarer, I will try and tag those or fix them as well.

TheDaveRoss15:49, 6 February 2016

How do you find templates with unclosed noinclude tags?

Would be glad if you could kindly tell me.

kc_kennylau (talk)03:35, 6 February 2016

I am using a script which pulls the contents of all of the pages in the template namespace and then checks them for balanced tags. I don't know of an easier way to do it, it is either that way or parsing the dump if you don't mind it being a bit stale.

TheDaveRoss15:48, 6 February 2016

Hi. I don't think it's a good idea to define things as "a nickname for..."; this is gloss information (e.g. colloquial, informal) and not part of the definition line. Similarly, we wouldn't define spoon as "a name for a piece of cutlery".

Equinox 17:49, 26 January 2016

I disagree, but what would you suggest as an alternative? I think this treatment is less confusing than simply listing the state name with context tags, and the other dictionaries I looked at seem to agree. Also, most of the nicknames are neither colloquial nor informal, most are official nicknames and appear in official contexts.

TheDaveRoss17:54, 26 January 2016

I suppose I'd gloss it with official nickname then, if that's a thing! like putting term of address on something like grandmamma (can't think of a real term-of-address example but did see one the other day). It just seems semantically wrong to define X as "a nickname for..." when that is not the definition of X.

Equinox 18:02, 26 January 2016

I agree that what is listed is not a definition, per se, which is a problem with content like this which is fundamentally encyclopedic. I think what you are saying is to do something like this:

  1. (official nickname) The state of Alaska in the United States.

Which is not any different except to a couple hundred people who are editors here, and I think violates the spirit of {{label}} (or whatever is the right one of those to use now). I don't have strong feelings about it guess.

TheDaveRoss18:32, 26 January 2016

The arcane {{non-gloss definition}} seems like the thing to use here. It's a pain to write out, but I would write either "{{n-g|Nickname for}} the state of Alaska in the United States" or "{{n-g|Nickname for the state of Alaska in the United States}}".

- -sche (discuss)04:20, 27 January 2016

Sounds good, I went with that.

TheDaveRoss12:33, 27 January 2016

meanie weenie = DaDavewoss

you meanie weenie

Ccecil123 (talk)17:43, 18 January 2016

I can't disagree.

TheDaveRoss17:50, 18 January 2016

Your edits with a bot flag

Some edits of yours have a bot flag and thus don't show up in recent changes.

(For example, your edits at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Language and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Headword line 2)

I take it is related to your work of adding Dickens citations using a bot flag? Which is a nice work IMO, but I'd prefer if your normal edits didn't have a bot flag. Is this something that can be fixed in your future edits? Or you could use User:TheDaveBot for that?

--Daniel Carrero (talk)14:54, 15 January 2016

It is a flood flag. I turn it on when I am adding citations since they would flood recent changes otherwise. It is a hassle to switch on and off, but I will try and swap it when making a significant edit such as a vote. Unfortunately setting the bot flag on an edit does not hide the edit from recent changes, as it should, otherwise I could leave the flood flag off and just flag the edits which are flood-y.

TheDaveRoss15:04, 15 January 2016

Module errors in translations

To answer the question in your edit comment: the translation adder apparently doesn't know about module errors, so it adds whatever text has been given it by the language-code-conversion routines, even if it's garbage. I'll have to ask at the Grease Pit whether there's something we can do about that

Chuck Entz (talk)14:32, 14 January 2016

I figured as much. I left a message with the person who added the translation to see what language they intended, maybe Georgian?

TheDaveRoss15:04, 14 January 2016

No, German (look at the "alt="). It was redundant to one already there, so I removed it

Chuck Entz (talk)15:08, 14 January 2016

Ah, they added German as well, they must have just tried twice then saved. Thanks for cleaning it up!

TheDaveRoss15:12, 14 January 2016

Hi TheDaveRoss. A change I made to a page was deleted. I apologize if I accidently broke a rule. Is offering a URL with examples of the page subject not a helpful addition? Thanks!, 13 January 2016

In general, no. It tends to be promotional of the page rather than instructive regarding the use of the word. If the word is used in an interesting way on the target page then feel free to quote the page, but placing a link to the page is not of much use.

TheDaveRoss17:01, 13 January 2016

Thank you for the reply and the information!, 13 January 2016

In diff, existing content on the page was moved out of place by your edit. This issue doesn't seem to have occurred on other pages where you were the previous editor, e.g. here; I don't know if it's happened on other pages.

- -sche (discuss)23:47, 12 January 2016

Thanks for letting me know, I am assuming it was a double-click mistake on my part since that one should have stood out. I'll double check.

TheDaveRoss23:52, 12 January 2016

Chuck Entz

The following edits came with the following text: "If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page."

Calling the rollbacks an error is an understatement. Chuck Entz is determined to turn a simple discussion about the nature of evidence into a conduct dispute, while you - by which I mean TheDaveRoss and SemperBlotto - are determined to let his incivil and counterproductive conduct stand and erase the resulting conduct dispute. I have never attempted to move a German section, I don't know the name "Equinox", I have never told Equinox that he must be new around here, and in this conduct dispute, my conduct has been excellent from even before it began. I am not a troll. You are trying to erase a conduct dispute that Chuck Entz and you deserve to lose. You are even marking it as minor edits. The edits are neither minor nor are they acceptable. The conduct of Chuck Entz and you is not acceptable., 7 January 2016

cx vs. context

I don't think you should be changing cx to contenxt. The last time we polled, more people preferred short names than long names.

Dan Polansky (talk)21:29, 27 December 2015

Template:cx is literally a redirect to Template:context, that is just like saying that a recent poll said people prefer obfuscation. I understand why people might like using cx when they are crating a line, since it is less typing, but I can't imagine why a less descriptive template would be preferred if it was the same amount of work.

TheDaveRoss21:35, 27 December 2015

I for one prefer cx, and not just for typing. The poll is at Wiktionary:Votes/2014-08/Templates context and label.

Dan Polansky (talk)21:35, 27 December 2015

What other benefit might cx have?

TheDaveRoss21:52, 27 December 2015

cx puts more visual emphasis on the context itself. Like, in cx|colloquial, colloquial is more visually outstanding than in context|colloquial. And it leaves more visual prominence to the definition itself.

On a related note, adding the lang= before the vote on migration to template lb/label is over seems suboptimal: once the vote is over, you will be able to add language and switch to template lb/label in one step.

Dan Polansky (talk)09:45, 28 December 2015

Strictly speaking, doing it as a bot violates WT:BOT#Policy but doing it as a human user is fine, as it violates nothing.

Renard Migrant (talk)21:53, 27 December 2015

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

Wmf logo vert pms.svg

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum(a) Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)23:34, 15 September 2015

Kephir dispute resolution

What has to happen is there needs to be some guarantee that Kephir won't keep bullshit blocking me and removing content I make on third-party pages, at least without harsh penalties. At present, the only rules-based way to prevent an admin from blocking an editor is to take away his tools. FWIW, the decision to start this discussion didn't start in a vacuum...I've been working on it for months, and not alone.

Purplebackpack8916:33, 20 May 2015

I understand that there are some interpersonal issues going on, and as with all things there are various points of view. What I am saying is that punitive votes have very rarely (if ever) succeeded, and if you actually want an outcome which resolves anything a vote is probably the worst place to start. The most likely outcome is probably just increased acrimony, no matter what the result of the vote.

TheDaveRoss17:50, 20 May 2015

Well, I wouldn't say this is wholly punitive. It's preventive in the sense that it aims to stop Kephir bullshit blocking me again. It also wasn't taken lightly; I used literally all the bullets I could before resorting to this. I tried talking to Kephir...and he deleted my comments as vandalism. Other people tried talking to Kephir...and he refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing, continuing to maintain that I'm a vandal and should be indeffed. But if you think we can still talk our way out of this, go right ahead and talk to Kephir about his blocks. See what happens. I think it's likely that you'll get one of the following two responses:

  1. Kephir refuses to respond entirely (perhaps by deleting your thread), or
  2. Kephir maintains he was clearly in the right, and I should be indeffed as a vandal

As you can see, either response is ridiculous, but you could still try talking to him. Good luck,

Purplebackpack8918:10, 20 May 2015

Why was I alerted that there were new messages in this thread which required my attention?

 — I.S.M.E.T.A.22:51, 20 May 2015

@I.S.M.E.T.A.: LiquidThreads notifies you of any conversation on a talk-page you're watching. (I assume you do have User:TheDaveRoss on your watchlist? If not, then I have no explanation.)

RuakhTALK00:18, 21 May 2015

Pretty boring page to watch!

TheDaveRoss11:46, 21 May 2015


You seem to be the only legitimate user of {{reflist}}, which you created; the rest are from transwikis and confused Wikipedians. I think we should not have that template under this name. Would you like it in your userspace?

Keφr06:16, 10 November 2014

Sure, although it could probably just be deleted along with all of the pages which use it.

TheDaveRoss16:03, 10 November 2014

Since you still have the sysop bit, I will leave it to you. (As well as running all that through the bureaucracy, if you feel it necessary.)

Keφr17:08, 10 November 2014

@Kephir Just FYI, the template has been recreated (by, you guessed it, a confused Wikipedian). :b

- -sche (discuss)02:02, 6 March 2015

There is nothing more fun than confusing Wikipedians!

TheDaveRoss16:12, 9 March 2015

So you know, a wallaby is not a mammal, but a marsupial.

Type56op9 (talk)19:26, 28 August 2014

Marsupials are mammals.

RuakhTALK04:45, 29 August 2014

OK, I suck!

Type56op9 (talk)08:26, 29 August 2014

Why'd ya make the Andrewsarchus extinct again?

The word andrewsarchus is more than just worth being mentioned in the Wiktionary! Why'd ya deleted the entry???--, 14 October 2013

New England

I have lived in Rhode Island since I was 2 1/2 years old. I was born in Virginia, though, and have no relatives there. Tharthan 20:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Tharthan20:34, 20 June 2011

I never got to asking, but what part of New England are you from?

Tharthan (talk)16:11, 13 August 2013

Re:SemperBlotto "Nah" deletion

You're referencing the wrong page. Page in question is podunk, not a slang term for breasts Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker)22:26, 21 November 2011


Do you think you could provide some input to Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Template:WS:rfvBP? There, I have nominated a template you have created for deletion, and we are unclear what the template was supposed to be used for. Thank you.

Dan Polansky15:37, 31 October 2011

I responded, I think it is deletable. Thanks for checking in though.

TheDaveRoss21:56, 31 October 2011

Spanish bot

Hi, you've got a working Spanish conjugation bot, right? Could I feed it sobrevolar please.

Rockpilot12:21, 25 October 2011

I haven't had one for some time, if there is a need I could write a new one.

TheDaveRoss13:37, 25 October 2011
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page