User talk:Gonnym

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

A tag has been placed on Category:Metrorail (Miami-Dade County) station platform templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you made an edit comment suggesting I could have made a "cleaner" edit to Claudia Llosa. If you look at the previous edit which made the EL of the type I wikignome on, you'll see that I didn't alter the way previous editors had done the italics. I have enough work to do to fix the IMDb issues without also fixing other editors' foibles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article June (The Handmaid's Tale) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:INCOMPDAB with two entries, both of which redirect to the same article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex (Supergirl) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex (Supergirl) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Gonnym, I misread this diff and inadvertently posted on Jonesey95's talk about it. Moving the conversation here (I will delete from his talk in 24hrs), but can you explain your edit, please? jhawkinson (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit ("Fix Linter errors. I hope you don't mind this minor cleanup edit in your user space") — I do mind. Please look at the edit you just made and explain to me why you think it was appropriate. It appears to be reverting debugging messaging that I have added to my own personal version of a template, on the basis of…well, if a linter was complaining, you have not evidenced the complaint or why it should be heeded. Please revert it (and explain it). jhawkinson (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhawkinson, that edit you referenced was not done by Jonesey95. This edit was done by Jonesey95 (and fixed a lint error). This other edit as done by Gonnym (and did not fix any lint errors). I've undone Gonnym's edit and left Jonesey95's edit active. You should see the "jhawk-test" text on User:Jhawkinson/Jed S. Rakofff now. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS, MY BAD! I misread the diff! I will move this conversation to @Gonnym's talk in 24hrs. Thanks, WOSlinker, but obviously I could have reverted it myself, I wanted to know why the editor who made the change did so! jhawkinson (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhawkinson, no worries! I make mistakes sometimes and welcome good-faith talk page dialogue. In this case, the "jhawk-test" text was inside a table but not inside a table cell, which causes a Linter "fostered content" error in which the interior text is rendered outside the table. My edit fixed the fostered content error, causing the interior text to render inside the table. If you want the text outside the table, the proper fix is to move it before or after the table code. If you want it to show up only with the "includeonly" text above it, you can move the closing includeonly tag to encompass it. I hope that helps. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm even more confused now, I think I confused Jonesey95 above, since it wasn't his edit that removed the "jhawk-test" text, that was Gonnym who we're still waiting to hear from? Sigh, sorry for messing up the attribution! jhawkinson (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please self revert the pages you blanked today that had fostered content errors that you justified on the basis of LINT. WP:LINT gives absolutely NO justification for blanking any page for any reason, and they were pages that did not meet the criteria of WP:STALE or of {{userpage blanked}}, as they were in the userspace of still active users (edited in last 12 months). These pages also were not in conflict with WP:UPNOT or WP:NOT.

Great leeway is given for pages in Userspace for the allowance of various creations and tests. Blanking old pages of active users WILL piss people off and be a detriment to the LINT project. If you are blanking a page, use the proper justification and do NOT blank any old page within an active user's userspace. If you can't fix the error, and STALE/UPB doesn't apply, leave the page alone for someone else to fix.

While I do blank sandbox and draft pages in userspace that I come across, it's been with pages where the user has not edited anything in over 4 years (far exceeding Stale's or Userpage Blanked's criteria) since I still come across users who pop back in after 4 years absence due to my edits who are not always happy of my changes, and I like to minimize these sorts of discussions.

Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Gonnym (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"No" is not a valid justification for blanking active users' old pages, nor is Lint (zero blanking permissions), Stale (which requires 12+ months inactivity from any user edits), or Userpage Blanked (which requires 12+ months inactivity from any user edits). Try again. What valid justification are you claiming for the blanking of these pages? Zinnober9 (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article June (The Handmaid's Tale) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June (The Handmaid's Tale) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit my page! Lasha-george (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that I've actually helped with whatever you wanted to do by fixing WP:LINT errors you incorrectly left. Not closing italics, incorrectly closing small tags, not closing lists. There is no WP:OWN when dealing with these things. Gonnym (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If so, thanks. I thought it was just a vandal. In the future, I am thinking of editing this page as: List of rulers of Georgia.--Lasha-george (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is a Wikipedia exercise, and when it's officially registered as a page, the correction will be made, okay?--Lasha-george (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a bit more errors on the page but because it is not in English (and quite a bit of text there), it's a bit difficult to fix. Regarding List of rulers of Georgia, good luck! Just make sure you publish it in English :) Gonnym (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed there is Lists of Georgian monarchs and related lists so make sure you aren't duplicating content. Gonnym (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lists of Georgian monarchs are versions of different authors, that is, they are all versions. To the right of the main list of Iberian kings is written See also, where there are versions by different authors. The project is not ready yet.--Lasha-george (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by authors? Wikipedia editors? Gonnym (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too came to ask why you were editing a test page of mine.[1] But strikingly, you didn't even use an edit-summary. That is always a good idea, and incredibly important when you are messing with someone else's test space. DMacks (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course, I meant different versions of historians! To the right of the main list of Iberian kings is written See also (იხილეთ აგრეთვე). Do you mean Wikipedia editors? No, I don't mean editors! Please refrain from editing my personal exercise. Goodbye and good luck...--Lasha-george (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I didn't know about {{Draft categories}}; I should have re-read WP:Drafts#Creating and editing drafts. It still doesn't remove the need to remember to re-enable the cats when moving to mainspace!

I don't know if I will need help moving it though. Is there a block on regular editors moving to a deleted article? David Brooks (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the links that were for the actor so at least that's ready. Regarding your question, I don't think so. Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Would it breaking protocol too much if I move it without waiting for a formal acceptance? After all, I have been known to create similar articles directly into mainspace. David Brooks (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, me again . It's nearly Big Brother time again, I was taking a glance at the 2023 season, I just realized that the Infobox reads "Big Brother 25" at the top and "Season 25" just below? Is this intentional? It may have always been this way and I might just not be recalling properly, but I wasn't sure if it changed with the updates to the Infobox since the last season ended. With BB U.S. specifically, it was determined that the season number is an official part of the season name. So "Big Brother 25" not "Big Brother season 25" hence the article title and disambiguation method. It just looked slightly odd, because while it is the 25th season of Big Brother, it sort of reads Big Brother 25 Season 25 (the twenty-fifth season of a show called Big Brother 25) based on how the Infobox appears with most other programmes. I'm not quite sure what an alternative could/should look like, but I just wanted to bring it up. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure what the previous code did in this situation and it's a bit of work needed to test, which I'm not too keen on doing atm. If the series title is problematic, then use |season_name=. That should work until me or someone else wants to refine the code and get these to work without needing that. Gonnym (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries on testing the old code, definitely didn't want to cause trouble. The season_name param will work for the articles! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit of Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. One more edit should be made. Please change

<span style="font-size:20px;line-spacing:28px">'''PLEASE READ BEFORE STARTING A NEW THREAD ON THIS TALK PAGE:'''

to

<span style="font-size:20px;line-spacing:28px">'''PLEASE READ BEFORE STARTING A NEW THREAD ON THIS TALK PAGE:'''</span>

to fix a missing end tag. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Concerning the below templates:

• Template:Latest stable software release/Microsoft Office 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Latest stable software release/Microsoft Office 2016 for Mac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Latest stable software release/Microsoft Office 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What do we do with these templates?

1. They are hardly ever updated.
2. Each of them have only one transclusion which is their main pages.
3. Two of those templates were created by a blocked or banned user.

Given the fact that the 2013 and 2021 along with others versions were deleted, should those templates as well be nominated for deletion? We can just replace their software infoboxes without invoking their respective LSR templates.102.158.52.50 (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure as I'm not editing those types of articles. I suggest asking at Template:Infobox software as that is where these are usually used at. Gonnym (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You previously nominated similar templates for deletion. I suggest you to do the same for the aforementioned templates.102.158.52.50 (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are in use. I won't nominate them. Gonnym (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where? In their own pages only. There are no other pages linking to those templates, rendering them redundant probably.102.158.52.50 (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a discussion. Go nominate them yourself if you want, no one is stopping you. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes they did last year. I would no longer be nominating or discussing any template following that incident.102.158.52.50 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]