User:A Fellow Editor/sandbox

...

asdf




Kevjonesin has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cookie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cookies

Hello, Kevjonesin. You have new messages at CactusWriter's talk page. Message added — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC). You can [ remove this notice] at any time.

asdf
- – — – — °″′≈≠≤≥±−×÷←→§·

hgf–hhh—ggj hgf&mdash;jhg – kjh

asdf


User:Kevjonesin/sandbox/kjsml

Template:kjsml

Otter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Magic_words#Variables

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PAGENAME

asdf
(中華民國刑法)

asdf
Contrib search Kevjonesin filtered for files

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Kevjonesin&namespace=6&tagfilter=&year=2013&month=-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Kevjonesin&namespace=6&tag

see my... tag
&ensp;

~(Arbitrary break in long thread to ease navigation)~
I feel at times that the game has superseded the goal. Editors playing rules and guidelines like Magic cards while forgetting to ask whether applying such in a given instance actually helps the reader parse what's trying to be conveyed. I don't see the readership mentioned very often in discussions at all actually. Yet isn't this ostensibly who the wiki is for? The process of operating the wiki sometimes seems to overshadow concerns about offering accessible and informative (preferably accurate) information to readers. [The process of operating the wiki sometimes seems to overshadow concerns about offering the wiki.] It would be nice if we could learn to treat ourselves with the courtesy we hopefully are aspiring to offer to our guests.

note: custom welcome add-on
Hi <__________>,

 Something I found useful when I started editing: 

Cordial 'real time' advice can often be found via IRC.

Somethings I would have found useful when I started editing:

The editorial community is quite diverse and includes it's fair share of cranks and eccentrics ranging from domineering and contentious to just plain weird in addition to editors simply amiably enthused about sharing knowledge with the world and each other. Humor and emotional cues are often missed or misconstrued when communicating through text alone. A bit of cautious consideration applied to both what one 'says' and what one 'hears' (i.e. writes/reads on talk pages and such) may prove helpful. Regardless of stated ideals—in actual practice disagreements amongst editors may have a tendency to get 'litigious' with much citing of rules and guidelines frequently via acronymic wikilinks.

As with making laws and sausages—making Wikipedia articles can get a bit messy at times. So I've offered a few—perhaps cynical—grains of salt lest expectations be overly tinged with rose colored sweetness. Basically, in my case I'd initially allowed myself to be overly enthused about lofty ideals which led to a sense of disillusionment when I realized that I was not in fact interacting in some sort of cyber utopia but within a culture of real humans with it's own associated range of quirks and protocols. If someone had 'talked me down' a bit initially I may have chosen to walk into the adventure with open eyes rather than running in with blind enthusiasm. That said, there are many interesting paths within the Wikipedia editorial community and I value my journeys here.

<__________>, good luck, and have fun.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Photography workshop user requests
Submit a new request by pressing this button:

Regarding recent reversion
Regarding the recent reversion of a misplaced reference which is flagged as a 'minor edit' and lacks an explanation in the edit summary. Whazzup? With the 'how', not the 'what'. Removing a misplaced reference is sensible—not questioning that. But it seems clearly outside the bounds of 'minor edit' guidelines. And a quick "misplaced reference" comment—or some such—in the summary would be a courtesy to fellow editors. If this is an 'automated tools' thing—as it's posting under your name and reflecting on you—please petition the maintainers to adapt it so as to conform to the same standards asked of humans. Thanks for your time and attention, --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing edit history (for WP:RM)
Hi y'all, I'm wondering why move requests don't show up in the page's edit history?

I'd made an 'uncontroversial technical request' yesterday and dropped in here today to check on its status. When I saw it had been cleared I thought to check the page history for details ... and there are none. Nor for a preceding request I'd taken note of. I've since confirmed that my request has in fact been fulfilled, thank you, but am still left wondering about the lack of page history anomaly? --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, the actual list of discussions is not on the RM page itself, it is on a subpage, which is transcluded as a template. This subpage is located at Requested moves/Current discussions, and you can see the full history there. It is generally only updated by a bot, though, which responds to requests listed on individual talk pages. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * oh, and apologies I didn't read your question properly. The section for uncontroversial and technical requests is another transcluded subpage, at Requested moves/Technical requests. Thanks! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently the edit notice Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requested moves is not sufficiently big and bold enough to make all editors notice it when they edit that page to request moves. Is there anything more we can do to make them notice, or does Wikipedia already have so many "tags" that editors have trained themselves to look past them all? Wbm1058 (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] Ah,, I see. So basically, in practice, the sections function as embedded pages with there own separate 'article' and history pages. Could we please explore ways to make this more transparent to visitors on the main WP:RM page?


 * Perhaps tack a small " [ history ] " link beside/under/near the relevant section headings?
 * And/or make the section headers themselves wikilink to the appropriate subpages?
 * e.g.:


 * ... and ...


 * ... and ...


 * Hmm ... As I've already got stuff mostly laid out here, above, and relevant browser tabs open for links and such, I may just go ahead and implement something now so we can see how it looks. If anyone finds the result objectionable feel free to adjust or revert, but please offer the courtesy of a response here to elaborate as to why and suggest alternatives. Thanks.


 * [ @, I think you may have misread/misunderstood. This thread is about how/why edit history on WP:RM displays as it does. It's not a move request. Otherwise, as an editor who appears to be a frequent contributor to this page seems a bit 'short' today, I'll refrain from personally implementing my suggestions above and instead leave them to y'all to explore (or not) on 'your' page. ltr ]


 * [Ha, just received a timely thanks from for my comment opening this thread. Did wonders for my mood. I'll leave my tabs open for a bit. If folks care to offer assurances that I'll not be running into WP:OWN issues I'll be happy to take the time to implement the proposed changes or some variation thereof—if others have alternate ideas for adding to the transparency/'discoverability' as discussed above.]


 * --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Kevjonesin, I think you do make a good point here. There are actually two related issues: yours with finding the history, and others who indeed have recently attempted to make requests on that page. While perhaps I'm the "primary overseer" of this system, I do not own it. Feel free to implement your ideas for improvement, per WP:BRD. I believe the rationale for making subpages was to more cleanly separate the move requests from the instructions, making it easier to track the history of changes to the instructions. Thanks, :-) Wbm1058 (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Kevjonesin, One way to get notified when your technical request is implemented is to put the page you asked to have moved onto your watchlist. See Help:Watching pages. Typically, if your request is contested, or viewed as potentially controversial, it is converted to a discussion section on the article's talk page. Should editors automatically get notification pings when their technical requests are converted to controversial requests? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah,, your usage of "that page" was ambiguous to me (i.e. which 'that')—and I think the big red triangle notice splashed in the middle of the thread startled me a bit, and my discovering it via dealing with an 'edit conflict' interface probably didn't help. Anyway I think I 'catch your drift' at this point. Your concern is that by making the section subpages readily accesible via a title link some folks will drift into editing directly on the subpages rather than inserting the requested copy/paste template code into the main WP:RM page, right? That makes sense to me actually now I've considered it. Dang, but I think I'm still misunderstanding ... I just went to Requested moves/Technical requests and checked the editing interface and I don't see the notice you posted above ... O/o ? , please elaborate as to what you were trying to address above, as at this point I feel that I myself was being hasty and would now prefer to have a better understanding before making changes. Am still/again confused as to target of pronoun, i.e. "that page". Explicitly which page, please? tnx --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, sorry, the red triangle is indeed intended to startle a little bit, and that's why I'm mystified when I see that there are apparently some editors who not only are not startled by it, but seem to miss it entirely. Edit the page Requested moves – the entire page, not a section of it. Now do you see the notice? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , temporarily adding move requested page to watchlist sounds like a good idea. Thanks, I'll do that if I bring another request in the future. As to whether I think users should get a notice if their request's status/category gets changed ... I'm not sure about 'should' (as in it being a requirement) but it certainly would be a courtesy and aid ease-of-discovery and such. Creating such a notice is beyond my present experience. Is such particularly involved/difficult to implement? I presume it would involve editing multiple templates?


 * As to ...
 * "'Edit the page Requested moves – the entire page, not a section of it. Now do you see the notice?'"
 * ... oh yeah, I see it there. But that's not one of the targets I was proposing. Hmm, in fact adding the links I proposed may well help steer people away from going there. And even if they edit the transcluded page directly (with the proper copy/paste template) it will still display the same as if the section edit link had been used, right?


 * [I think I'm remembering dealing with something sorta' similar when I was helping out at the Graphics Lab. Somehow had prominently linked to the proper section editing interface for user image editing requests. Oh yeah, we (I?) made a 'big red button' targeting such. Transcluded templates are in the mix there as well come to think of it. I've not messed with such in awhile. I'll go look at the Photography Lab and snoop the code. It's sounding like something less subtle than I was originally imagining may be useful here at WP:RM.]


 * --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Section 'request buttons'
I found the Photography workshop's—now green—button ... as on page ... and source code ""

Seems like it can probably be adapted. Suggestions on how to tweak the targeting for use here on WP:RM would be welcome. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

p.s.— For now I think I'll go ahead and implement 'plan A', section wikilinks, as discussed previously. Button is 'mission creep' but seems well worthwhile if some folks are using the full page 'edit source' option instead of going to the (sub)sections as directed. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Further examples (from image link code above):


 * Template:Graphics Lab/new request/preload
 * Template:Graphics Lab/new request
 * Graphics Lab/Resources/Photography Advice

--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)