User:Mendel/Talk Archive 2

Specific
Dont undo edits that were actually useful, only ones that did somthing wrong. for instance, shouldn't be reverted, nor should  to. :|. Its "Cleanup", not "Revert every change" 78.86.62.140 17:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have 300+ pages to revert in User:Talk alone. When I see in the history that the last edits were Maybot edits, I revert them unseen because I want to get the job done. The useful bot changes can more easily be redone by rerunning the bot than by me working by hand, I believe. That said, I don't usually do anything with the signature rewrites, so these should be ok. Where did you see these done by me? mendel 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But the point is the effort of it. From what I can see, "Go Go the ability to do two tasks in one" is the one that is useful, and "Bot Testing" or "Relinking as per Bot Tasks" is the bad summary. 78.86.62.140 17:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the GoGo makes wrong edits that delete information; it uses the DeleteLink template wrong, if I recall correctly. The only edits I trust are the signature rewrites. May I ask that wherever you revert my reverts (breaking policy yourself, btw) you keep the Maybot changes concerning the DeletdLink template reverted? Please read Cleanup_after_Maybot. mendel 17:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The GoGo is the one that does PanSola's sign. 78.86.62.140 17:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't normally revert that, but see above. Why does it break GW:SIGN? mendel 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The stuff that Marvin works on is easier as it allows a simple rewrite to fix the Maybot edit, and that leaves any subsequent changes intact. Except for the earliest dozen or so, I did have problems with those on User:, I believe. May possibly changed the bot programming but didn't change the summary. Maybe that should be required in the new bot policy: indicate bot version in the summary, and make a new version whenever the bot gets changed (even a tiny little bit). mendel 17:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple things:
 * The anon reverting your edit does not break 1RV, as each editor has only reverted once. 1RV is only broken if the same editor reverts something more than once.
 * It breaks GW:SIGN because signatures are not supposed to be transcluded. It's been mentioned off and on for a while now that old signatures that did use templates should be rewritten, but no one had bothered doing it yet.
 * &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 20:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, GW:1RV isn't per editor, it's per article )-: -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 05:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it was when I last read it. Considering it had gone 18 months without a significant revision, it's no wonder I missed what was added on March 20.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 05:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's nice, saves me ranting about that. I've still to write my POLICY:RFAQL proposal, though: "Revert first, ask questions later" seems to be pretty much community consensus. Without the "ask questions" part. (Present company excluded.) mendel 05:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

GW:SIGN was broken before. We don't have a GW:MATCHING BRACES or I could have invoked that on that revert, I think. Gah! UCS is dead (present company excepted)!

I'm pretty pissed off at the moment anyway because AWB has gone on strike. I click save, and it acts as if it saves, but the wiki doesn't have the changes. I think May has encountered similar behaviour. It is not a direct result of the stop via the talk page, because Marvin contributed after that no problem. No admin action has been taken either, I can manually post from the account, and the logs are empty. It might be that wikia is too slow at this time of day. But it does suck when you happily save away (and I've been lots of manual editing on that) and suddenly notice it was all for naught. Gah! Maybe some strange URL or page content or page size kills it, who knows? mendel 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case
I guess I just wasn't paying attention. 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

spam filter workaround
Why didn't I think of that... move the page, edit it, then move it back (don't think the spam filter blocks page moves). Brilliant! &mdash;Dr Ishmael 23:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I wouldn't move them back - the users don't have any hope of editing them in that slashed state. mendel 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)