User talk:Scs/Archive/2016

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit.
Other archives: 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

"Should"

You used word "should" five times in your one-paragraph closure on ANI re FPAS incivilities. (Q: Do you realize how weak is that language? [For e.g., I have a friend who told me he goes balistic whenever hearing the word "should", because it never is designed to accomplish anything, and won't, for example, when he doesn't receive a check in the mail, he calls to complain, and is told it was mailed, and he "should have received it". {I've tried to eliminate the word from my personal vocabulary as a result. I don't want to be another source of weak speach/thought. It does me nor anyone else any good and is a waste of time. I imagine your close will have the same effect - nothing done, nothing accomplished, waste of time.}]) Thx for your consider. IHTS (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that the word can be ambiguous. In my usage (and understanding) it's not, but I appreciate the perspective. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should eat five servings of fruits & vegatables every day. You should do 45 minutes of rigorous cardiovascular exercise 3 times per week. You shouldn't eat saturated fats. You should drink 7 glasses of fresh water everyday. You should ... (Tell me when I'm boring you to death. [Skip that, I already did myself in by writing this. :( ]) Cheers. p.s. I had pinged Jimbo Wales in that ANI. By closing it so quickly, you put an obstacle for him to respond, were he so inclined to. And it was a perfect opportunity for him to respond on the fundamental point of profanity and admin expectation of "conduct at a higher standard". (Had he replied, that would have been something. Instead, we have your pathetic five "shoulds". Good one.) IHTS (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Ihardlythinkso, I just came here for an unrelated reason, and couldn't help reading your advice. I thought you should consider the importance of modal logic, how English modal verbs denote various concepts in deontic and alethic modality, and perhaps you ought to endeavor to use these words carefully, rather than ban them :) Seriously, I don't mean to pick any fights, I've just had tons of fascinating conversations about modal logic and the English language. One guideline that I find helps clarify things "Every 'should' should have an 'if". That is to say, many modal claims are in fact presumptive of a background conditional, and putting this clearly can avoid problems. So, rather than "You should brush your teeth", a parent could prefer to say to their child "If you don't want cavities, you should brush your teeth". Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apples & oranges. (Linguistics & psychology/politics.) p.s. It's also healthier to eliminate weak words "just" and "hope" from active vocabulary. (They're good only in manipulating others.) IHTS (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my; I hope you never have to discuss anything regarding just cause and never wish to express any optative thoughts... SemanticMantis (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk archiving problem

January 11 and 12 link to the Current Help Desk even though the archives for later pages have been created. I can substitute the correct date when I fall behind, but since the links are supposed to be there, is there some way to fix that? I didn't want to do it manually since I might mess it up but I guess at this point I could.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Vchimpanzee: The pages just needed a purge, which I have just done. The code in the archive header works out whether the following day's archive has been created. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I figured that out, but it wasn't working.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. @Vchimpanzee: Everything working right for you now? —Steve Summit (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is now, thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I actually came for

Hi Steve, it seems I am the only person who actually read your last topic on the red desk talk page and answered what you were asking (I did jump back in, but only after the whole thing was entirely derailed. Actually I don't think the poor thread ever even got on the rails). While I'm very busy this week, how about we run an actual straw poll next week? We could work together to remove any non-voting comments. I hate to tell people not to talk (it always annoys me when others say we shouldn't discuss things) but in this case, anyone can still open their own threads, and we won't be able to get anything resembling a !vote without some purging of non-votes. Any thoughts? SemanticMantis (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that.

Me, I have mostly decided (based on the entirely characteristic way that thread got utterly derailed) to completely give up, walk away, wash my hands of all of it. But I'm busy (on business travel) myself, and haven't actually written any inflammatory farewell notes, and meanwhile I've calmed down a bit, and may yet recant. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bot archiving reference desk

Hi! I noticed that a topic on the reference desk, "How to prevent Google Chrome apps from knowing tab is not on top ?", was archived by Scsbot. Scsbot ~~used an incorrect edit summary, and it~~ seems to have ignored the fact that the most recent reply in that section was written about an hour before it archived that section...

~~I am not sure why the editsummary was incorrect, but I assume that is easy to fix.~~

But what isn't easy to fix is that the bot seems to archive stuff that shouldn't be archived. I haven't looked at the code, but shouldn't that bot ignore sections that have recently been replied to? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The RD archiving has always been strictly date-based, without regard to any recent activity. Consensus at WT:RD has always supported that, but it could certainly be brought up for discussion again. (It may be time for a new archiving bot sometime soon, for a number of reasons.)

You tricked me with that diff link; I was afraid something was wrong at first! But all is well. I didn't run the bot last night, so it had two days' worth of work to do tonight. It archived March 22 and March 23 in close succession. The link you posted was actually a composite diff encompassing both edits. (Note the fine print "One intermediate revision by the same user not shown".) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, I tricked myself too! Do you have a link to the consensus that the RD archiving should be strictly date-based, without regard to any recent activity? That page has 122 archives! And do you personally have an opinion on this matter? I think it would be better if the bot would check the section, find the most recent timestamp, and make a decision based on that. I know this is much more difficult to create, and I assume you are probably very busy, but I think it would be an improvement over the current system. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no links to previous discussions handy, sorry, but feel free to bring the question up on the talk page. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you! Do you have an opinion on this topic (and a preference for date-based or activity-based archiving)? You seem to be the RD archiving expert around here. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong preference. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desk

Steve, hi. The question "Over the breakfast table" regarding railway gauges which you recently answered on WP:RD/M was posted by the banned user VoteX (see WP:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change). I've deleted the question and your reply - I thought I'd better let you know. Tevildo (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- thanks for letting me know. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scsbot at the Help desk

Hi! I am pleased to see that Scsbot is running again, and has archived some of the reference desks. It didn't manage to archive the Help desk, though. I've been archiving it manually for a few days, but I'll leave it for now so that you can test the bot. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]