User talk:Matrix

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries, however, they will try to never let you down.

This is Matrix's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 3 months

New message from A smart kitten

Hello, Matrix. You have new messages at MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext.
Message added 10:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just in case the ping didn’t send - apologies if this is a duplicate notification :) ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 10:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not seeing this earlier - go ahead! —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 15:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riddlesdown railway station

I see the train station clique has singled out your AfD for attention. They are a minority viewpoint, but since station AfDs don't attract many people they can override policy with local "consensus" and nonsense arguments. I'm sure you noticed essentially all the keep votes were knee-jerk indignant reactions that failed to make policy-based arguments. You're far from their first victim. I was the one who launched the 2022 RfC that closed with an overwhelming consensus that train stations are not inherently notable. I started that RfC because I was tired of AfDs ending exactly like this one, where the train station clique stonewalls any argument with "but don't you know all train stations are automatically notable?!" After the RfC, they can't say that out loud, but they just find other ways to imply it. Some people seem to have an issue following that consensus. I recommend a more pointed RfC aimed at defeating the "how dare you AfD a train station on the British railway network! They're all notable just by existing" arguments from this AfD. And if that doesn't work, then ANI is the next step. I've been here over three years and this problem is far older than my tenure here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: Another note, sometimes RFCs don't work! You can read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Streetcars#RfC: Notability and Tramlink stops which is an RFC I started. But yeah, I will start an RfC soon. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 15:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to read Wikipedia talk:Notability#RfC: Notability and British Rail stations —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective pinging at RfC

At your RfC at template:Keep Local, you pinged some editors to join the discussion. Please take the time to review your notifications to ensure that you are properly following WP:Canvassing to get comments from all interested editors. Van Isaac, GHTV^cont_WpWS 16:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VanIsaac: I pinged Anomie, a user who was very much against my proposal. I pinged 2 users that were for this proposal. I simply forgot to ping you as I only looked at the bottom most discussion. Please take the time to review WP:AGF to ensure you are properly assuming good faith instead of jumping to allegations of canvassing. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are NOT the only four people who have participated in discussions about this template, though. You are new around here, so the only assumption that I made is that you might not be aware of policies like WP:Canvassing, hence pointing it out and asking that you check your own actions in that light. Please read my post here objectively. Your assumption of bad faith on my part is very concerning. I didn't template you, I didn't accuse you of anything, I just asked you to review your own actions in light of a policy. But your recency bias is disconcerting. There have been three deletion discussions about this template, and discussion history going back decades. There's even more in the archives of WP:CSD. Sticking to the few participants from the last couple months is a choice that indicates you don't appreciate the history of those of us who have fought to protect this project from the real harms that this template protects us from. I don't know how to convince you that history matters here, but it does. Van Isaac, GHTV^cont_WpWS 21:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VanIsaac: Apologies for being passive aggressive in my reply, it was unwarranted on my behalf. I wouldn't call it a recency bias. It's just that I can't be asked to trawl through old discussions and see who is still active and whatnot. Also, I think a few things have changed since 2013, there are clearly more people that have accepted Commons (looking at the proportion of files on Commons vs enwiki). I also think many discussions suffered from WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, so an RfC might help.

Another important point: I don't want to get rid of KeepLocal entirely! That is not in my aim of this RfC. I have just seen a select group of en.wiki editors upload files they didn't create and then artificially downgrade end users' experience, because the Commons community can't maintain a file.

Also, you keep saying unimaginable horrors the Commons comminity has done in maintaining files. Can you give a recent example (<3 years) of Commons ruining stuff against files, because everything I've read seems to be broad paranoia against Commons?

On a completely unrelated sidenote you signed your post ending with "GHTV". Out of curiousity what does that mean?

Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 22:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what Commons has done recently, because I learned a decade and a half ago it isn't worth contributing anything that isn't covered by PD-text or PD-simple. As soon as something can possibly have a copyright interpretation, the processes are so opaque and unreasonable that no sane person should ever be subjected to it. I don't build article content that builds upon copyrighted images hosted on Commons for clarity or demonstration for the same reason. I contribute to Commons with BSicons and images of the basic units of writing systems, and that's about it. I take up this fight every time it comes up because I don't want anyone else to go through what I did. Curating a page to be both informative and beautiful and then to have your work gutted by bureaucratic officiousness that you didn't even know about is absolutely demoralizing, and to be treated like you are some kind of criminal when you object is dehumanizing. I've never seen anything that shows they've changed over there, and people coming in trying to undermine our independence from Commons only deepens the belief that they will never change and that we at en.wiki were always just the sacrificial lambs on building Commons to service the multi-lingual wikipedia.

On the unrelated sidenote, the "GHTV" is a post-nominal for Grand High Togneme Vicarus. It is deliberately unlinked and abbreviated beyond recognition because it is nothing more than meaningless fun and is not even remotely intended to confer a single iota of authority in any matter. Van Isaac, GHTV^cont_WpWS 02:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VanIsaac: to be honest, I don't really care if my preferred option "!wins" the RfC. I care more about getting a definitive answer, and not getting the answer "nominate everything at FfD individually". It's clear that the RfC will not succeed anyway now. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 09:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well we do care if your preferred option wins. But more importantly, we care about the disrespect contained in even proposing it.

The definitive answer you are looking for is that it's none of your business if we have a copy of an image also found on Commons. If anyone has a legitimate issue with an image - i.e. an issue that has nothing to do with where it is hosted - then all the CSD, FfD, PROD, and other deletion processes are freely available. If the only concern is that it's hosted both here and at Commons, if given the choice, many of us would deny it from Commons rather than be forced to submit to their processes. But every time someone from Commons comes here and shits on us for protecting ourselves from their dysfunction, it adds to the mistrust and deepens the divide. Van Isaac, GHTV^cont_WpWS 16:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VanIsaac: I don't think this discussion is productive anymore. We seem to just be going in . I don't think the mere proposal of an issue is disrespectful, but that's your thoughts. Let's let the RfC end naturally and till then, have a good one. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template editor granted

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

All template-protected pages
User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! Primefac (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Peripatetic

For future reference, you need to do the dummy edit with the link to the page that the article was translated from and stating the timestamp, as per WP:RIA{{Translated page}} is a courtesy. There's no need to redo them, although I have done some when closing the other sections, but please keep in mind for the future. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sennecaster: That is not strictly necessary. WP:RIA says "you may use an edit summary like this" (i.e. not a requirement to follow strictly). Per Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, all you really need to do is include a URL/hyperlink somewhere to the original source for translated articles. When you save an edit, it says "[y]ou agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license" at the bottom. I did that with {{Translated page}}. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When translating material from a Wikimedia project licensed under CC BY-SA, a note identifying the Wikimedia source (such as an interlanguage link) and the page name must be provided in an edit summary in the translated page, ideally in its first edit from WP:PATT, emphasis mine. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sennecaster: Thanks for clarifying. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I honestly blame how poorly worded a lot of the copyright policy is for CWW confusion, but it's still a good thing to point out for the future. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Custom signature

Hi Matrix! Your signature is quite lengthy and elaborate. Could you please consider shortening it and starting with a link to your user page, as is standard for most signatures? This would help user scripts easily identify your signature (e.g., for replacement or modification) and keep things more straightforward. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Quinlan: I've shortened the signature. I don't really understand why a link to the userpage at the start is required though, mind explaining? —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for considering changes, I appreciate it! The reason for having the user page link at the start is mainly for consistency and technical reasons. Until T27141 is addressed, most user scripts in this area rely on the user page link to identify where a signature begins. In your case, your signature now looks like it starts at "u" which confuses scripts into thinking that text before that link is part of your comment. It's an unusual case. Your signature is probably 1 in 10,000 from a difficulty standpoint so making code changes to handle it would break proper recognition of more signatures than it would fix. (No joke, I've tested several user scripts that I've been working on with that many user signatures.)

From a usability perspective, it also follows the Principle of least astonishment. Users expect that clicking a username will take them to the user page, and anything else can be jarring. WP:CUSTOMSIG/P has some additional best practices although it doesn't talk about technical issues. I hope this clarifies the requests. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed explanation! I have changed it to be better now. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 18:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that fixed it! The "u" might be unnecessary if you wanted to be more efficient with your signature (hopefully changing that won't break my code, it feels like a minor miracle that it's parsing your signature correctly now). Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]