User talk:ProcrastinatingReader

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives:

Hello!

This is a notification to let you know that a new request for the global bot flag for CommonsDelinker has been started.

Please note that the request will remain open for 14 days starting today. You can leave a comment or opinion on the relevant page!

Best regards --Superpes15 (talk)

Hey, can you reactive the purge task? I've added a category to the one off list at User:ProcBot/PurgeList. Gonnym (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Forgot to reply here, but this should be done. (Let me know if you think it didn't work properly?) In future, it should automatically respond to one-time category purge requests on that page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it finished. Gonnym (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @ProcrastinatingReader, can the bot can purge modules and can it purge deleted modules? Gonnym (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted ones I don't think would work.

For non-deleted, let's see... I used to have old code which purged transclusions of templates. It's disabled (and I'd have written the code for it differently today), but I can re-enable it, and it might work mostly as-is for modules. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not immediately going to work, so I've disabled template transclusion purges for now. I'll need to look into it a bit more, but not sure when I'll have time in the immediate future. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for letting me know. Gonnym (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I apologize for sending this message in English. Please help translate to other languages..

In accordance to the policy, this message is to notify you that there is a new approval request for a global bot.

The discussion is available at Steward requests/Bot status#Global bot status for Leaderbot on Meta.

Thank you for your time.

Best regards, EPIC (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend. I hope you're well. In your recent RFC close at WT:AELECT, you wrote any voter guides will not be linked to from this page. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to amend it to be clearer about what this page applies to? Does it apply to subpages? (I assume yes.) Does it apply to AELECT talk pages? (Completely unsure on this one, "this page" is technically the talk page.) Does it apply to any non AELECT pages? (I assume no.) Thanks for your consideration. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better clarify subpages too. I assumed that voter guides can't be mentioned there, but another editor assumed they can. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say disallowing a mention on any sub page falls under the discouraged category personally. "I saw on josh's non existent guide about xyz..." would then be disallowed. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, "this page" was supposed to mean Wikipedia:Administrator elections. The close is not supposed to be a gag order, but it tries to toe the line between an effective prohibition (where voter guides are discentivised to the point where if anyone writes one in userspace, it may as well not exist), and the open way voter guides at ACE exist and are promoted/encouraged. I appreciate it's an awkward balance, and likely will be revisited after this election, but I think a balance should be workable for this election.

With respect to the specific scenarions queried; for subpages of WP:AELECT and talk pages: linking to voter guides in a signed comment by editors is not prohibited, and thus a user may link to them as naturally arises in the course of discussion, or in a question if they wish to cross-reference against something on another page (such as in Hey man im josh's example here, which would be within the spirit of the close). But this shouldn't be used to take the mick, e.g. a {{mbox}} at the top of every discussion page with a list of voter guides referencing the candidate, which would be tantamount to option 2. The close doesn't extend to non-AELECT pages, which are outside the scope of the process. Does this help? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that. As one of the involved editors, I find that quite helpful. As a follow-up, does the close permit anything on Wikipedia:Administrator elections saying that voter guides are not to be linked from there, or should any edits attempting to make such links just be reverted when and if they happen? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latter - revert if links are added to that page ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm going to link to this at the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ProcBot's task "Main Page snapshots" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 edits in the last 1 day, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the {{/task}} template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, please see [1] for a question – you haven't edited for 4 days, so I was afraid you might not notice the ping. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I think you found[2] the answer to your particular question? I don't really want to get involved in the broader question of whether COVID articles still need CT editnotices 😅 ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]