User talk:Writ Keeper/Archives/16

Wynne jones
The reason for the deletion is that it is causing confusion - I know this because I went looking for 2 other Wynne Joneses and instead of telling me it didn't have the name it redirected me to Diane Wynne Jones. But she isn't the only Wynne Jones out there. So now it needs to become a disambiguation page redirect. It seemed simpler since nothing at all links TO it to delete the error and allow for the creation of a single disambiguation page and the new Wynne Jones pages that need to exist. Thoughts?Antiqueight (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the disambiguation page would have to be at Wynne Jones regardless, right? Wynne jones will still be a redirect either way. I don't really see how deleting the miscapitalized page helps. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

OS
FYI I saw that in my watchlist and OS'd it for you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, PMC! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Page Deletion
Dear Writ Keepr, Namastey! I created the page Freelance talents. I provided dozens of citations from independent sources including news websites, sites requiring verification of published material like comicbook.com. I believe this time there were enough links to back the article compared to the version that was deleted 2-3 years back. Please reconsider your decision. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keratao (talk • contribs) 21:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Freelance talents
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Freelance talents. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Keratao (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :)
But you could've just !voted Userfy ;) :D  Take care!  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 13:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha, no problem, but you know what they say about people who talk to themselves. ;) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

CU Staleness script
I was wondering whether it would be possible to change the staleness script to start listing staleness details from the bottom of the page and work its way up, rather than start the top and work its way down as it does now? The reason I ask is that the only time I ever had an issue with the script's limit of only flagging 10 accounts at a time is with lengthy archive pages, where the accounts I'm actually interested in are the most recent ones listed at the bottom of the page, whereas the ones listed at the top are so obviously stale that I don't need the script to tell me that. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that should be possible, I think. Let me try it out. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @Sir Sputnik: That should do it, I think. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * After a quick spot check of a few longer archives, this looks good to me. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a job for...
When I read Interface administrators, I thought of you. It seems like you would be a natural for this and have all of the qualifications. I didn't know if you were aware of it. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah, I've been pinged from the talk page there a few times, when my name comes up on the lists of people who've edited .js pages. I'm only vaguely following it; I've decided to sit out the temporary access period, and may or may not apply for the permanent permission, depending on what the process is. I do have some experience editing the space covered by the permission and am willing and able to continue to work there, but the fact is that I don't need it that desperately. I certainly couldn't demonstrate an immediate need for the right (which is why I'm sitting out the temporary process), since most of my js/css work is within my own userspace, and honestly I don't think there's much demand for iadmins in the first place. If the final process has a tool-specific activity requirement, I probably won't bother; I'm not sure enough iadmin edit requests crop up to support that kind of requirement to make it worth bothering with. I wouldn't mind having the ability to help out, and I think I can be trusted at this point, but if people are that fussed about reducing the attack surface (a little over the top imo, but I get it), then that's fine too. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarification
Why was the entirety of my page deleted? Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about your userpage, which was deleted five years ago? It was deleted as a result of a consensus reached at a community discussion, which can be found here. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 12:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No you deleted it yesterday as I edited it yesterday. But just so we are clear, I have invoked the ADA with concerns relevant to my use of the public services offered by Wikipedia based on an incorporation in California, which you seem to have given access to system functions I do not have, and you are deleting my attempts to issue a complaint under the ADA? Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @JasonAJensenUSA: I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. If you go to the deletion log for your user page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=User%3AJasonAJensenUSA), you'll see that I deleted your page at 17:51, 18 June 2013, subsequent to the MfD discussion that you yourself participated in--over five years ago. If you're referring to your mention of the ADA, then I think that happened on your user talk page, here, and has never been removed or deleted to date; you can still see it on the live version of your talk page here, in the "spoliation of evidence" section.
 * While we're at it, though, I'd strongly recommend that you drop any mentions of the ADA entirely, as it's completely irrelevant to anything you're doing on Wikipedia. You can't use the ADA to justify blanking pages or otherwise being disruptive, and trying to invoke it to use in disputes against other editors will either get you blocked for legal threats or simply ignored entirely; it will in no way help anything you're trying to do. I'm not deleting anything, I'm just telling you that your complaint is frivolous and pointless.
 * For the record, I happen to know that one of our best editors and admins (meaning they have exactly the same access to "system functions" as I) is blind, and uses a screen reader to browse and edit Wikipedia. Just food for thought. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

commonHistory on RecentChangesLinked
Hi Writ Keeper. Would you enable commonHistory on Special:RecentChangesLinked when you have time? —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @JJMC89: Should be done now. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

:(

 * Hi, Adarequiermentwiki, I was about to drop a note on your user page, but we can talk here as well. I reverted your edits because they don't really make sense for the pages. This isn't out of some bias against the ADA (if anything, I'm quite for it). But it doesn't make sense to link to the ADA on every page about some facet of public transportation; it's just too vague a connection. It might make more sense to link to the ADA for pages that are specifically about the design of public transport, particularly if the article discusses accessibility issues in its text--though if it did, there would likely already be a link to the ADA in that text somewhere. But there's no reason to link to the ADA from every article; it's just overkill. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

pleae review the pages that were reverted bad faith no information or links to other wiki pages regards to ada regulations  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adarequiermentwiki (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Cullen328 got rid of my page thats why i did it i spent a load of work on the page and my wiki page was for my college HomeWork (User talk:Connor McCormick)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Connor McCormick: That doesn't excuse blanking their talk page or calling them a prick. Cullen was correct to delete your user page: Wikipedia is many things, but it is not a general web host. One's user page is generally for providing editing-related information about oneself to other Wikipedia editors; some personalization and self-expression is permitted, of course, but there's a limit to what is acceptable.
 * That said, if you still needed the text of the article, I (or Cullen, or any other administrator) can provide you via email with all of the text that was on the deleted article. You still can't host it on Wikipedia, but you can use it elsewhere for your own purposes. Just let me know if you need the deleted text, and I can email it to you. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC) please can you sent it to me on Gmail

Restart user "Rwwww"
Id like to return to my original user id. The text at Rwwww says to contact you. I'v forgotten if passwords or such are required.

Thanks, Richard W Weaver. tooold (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Rwwww. I'm happy to help, but I'm honestly not totally sure what you're asking for, or why you're contacting me about it; it looks like the Rwwww account stopped editing well before my account was created, and I don't see any mention of my username on User talk:Rwwww. Like I said, I'm happy to help regardless; what is it exactly you're asking for? It looks like you already have access to the Rwwww account. Are you asking for a username change? If so, I can't help with those any more; I used to be a bureaucrat who could perform username changes, but haven't been for a few years now. The place to go for those is Special:GlobalRenameRequest. HTH, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

-

Well, below, is where I started. You are listed as deleting the page. Then, somewhere (I can't find it now) there is text stating that to reactive a page .... "ask the person who deleted it". Thus my request to you!

Given your surprise, that "ask the person who deleted it" is probably intended for the deletion of a topic, not for the deletion of an editor. OK, but how do I reactivate my name?

Thanks again, 67.160.197.209 (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion log Jump to navigation Jump to search

Below is a list of recent deletions and restorations.

If a page you created or a file you uploaded has been deleted, and you wish to know why, see Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted? Logs Performer: Target (title or User:username for user): From date (and earlier): Tag filter: Type of deletion:

21:36, 20 February 2014 Writ Keeper (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Rwwww (G2: Test page) 08:03, 23 April 2013 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Rwwww (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace)


 * Ah, okay, I see what you mean. My deletion of User:Rwwww was just of the userpage, not the user account or anything else. What happened is that an entirely different account, unrelated to you, happened to create and edit that page. I deleted it since it was pretty clearly an editing test by someone editing in a place where they usually shouldn't. The deletion shouldn't impact your editing at all; you can completely disregard it and carry on as normal if you like, or you can simply re-create the user page with whatever you want just by clicking the usual "create page" button. I can also undelete the page and restore what was there if you like; just let me know. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate your help, thanks. Will trundle off and see how far I get. Thanks again, tooold (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

happy adminship anniversary
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day! Best wishes, Nat965 (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Inline diffs
Hi Writ Keeper, I've been using your inline diff scripts for page histories and contribs for a bit now and it's been amazingly helpful! I'm wondering if it's possible to add a button to expand all diffs on a page with a single click? That would be helpful in certain cases reviewing a user's edit history. This of course isn't a particularly high-priority request – it'd just be nice to have. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahem
Sir WK, do you still do adminny things? I dropped my CU tool on the stairs on the way to the bathroom, but it's pretty clear that User talk:Aint it chief and IP 166.182.84.237 are the same. Thanks! 199.80.13.80 (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, don't need tools to see that, and User:67.43.18.53 too. Looks like Kinu issued a final warning on the account's talk page while I had stepped out; I'll put it on my watchlist if anything else needs doing (definitely let me know if you see more). Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, Doc. It's turning out to be a really rough month, and fiddling with scripts is kinda my happy place; it's good to know that it helps people. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: Old editing toolbar (2006 version)
Thanks. I may do so. I am hoping that a simpler solution is implemented. I just want the 2 one-click link buttons back. Not the whole toolbar. Please see my latest comments at WP:VPT.

Maybe you can create a gadget to add those 2 buttons to the end of the default wikitext editing toolbar currently in use? --Timeshifter (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete Trumpism? Did you read the talk page? Or my contest against speedy deletion?
Seanhempseed (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I did read the talk page, and your contest; they left me unconvinced. Your draft was a thinly-veiled screed against Trump. You don't get to talk badly in Wikipedia's voice about living people anywhere on Wikipedia, and calling people "heinous", "vicious", "willfully ignorant", and motivated from "a place of twisted hate" is that, no matter how true you or I believe that is (in my case, more than you might think). I've deleted your copy-paste of the material into your sandbox as well; do not restore it again anywhere on Wikipedia. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Boss, I live in the land of the Free. I will not be erased by your push of the delete button.  You do not get to censor the internet and scrub it of things you do not like that do not fit with your political slant.  I am a believer in facts.  If you are not, you should leave.  You do not get to act like some special agent who speaks for all of Wikipedia because my true and obviously factual words rubbed you the wrong way.  I will restore again and again and again and I will learn to make it better by learning to not be biased, as you clearly are.  I will find editors who believe in truth and they will me... you watch.  Mark My Words.  For I have just begun to tell all the truths.


 * you said


 * "Your draft was a thinly-veiled screed against Trump".


 * I'm sorry, but your interpretation of my intentions is wrong and, flatly, insulting. You don't know me and trying to interpret my actions as you have done is wrong.  As I acknowledged in my "screed" as you call it, there were tone issues... as were pointed out by the original reviewing editor.  But you cannot object to the content or sources, just the tone.  And that is something to be improved, not censored.  While I do not like to make assumptions, it is patently obvious by your quick actions and dismal word choice that your position is guided by your belief that others are attacking the American president.  I am not one of "those" people.


 * I am simply offering a wiki page that describes a known philosophy; one of Trumpism. You can say my words seem harsh, but perhaps you are not considering the underlying facts at hand... as Trump himself does not.  Instead of attacking me, because I upset your belief system, why not try to help by starting your first sentence to me with... maybe you could try this thing, insteadItalic text.  For me, that would be useful whereas your cryptic pointing to a non-related idea and wholesale deletions of facts make me want to describe the philosophy even more.  For me it is easy to see it for what is is, for I am not a trumpet as you seem to be. Seanhempseed (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to respond to most of this, but to be brief: Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech; you don't get to say whatever you want on Wikipedia, and that fact is not a breach or limitation on your First Amendment free speech rights. (I know you didn't explicitly mention the First Amendment, but i mention it just in case that was your implication.) I actually do get to act like some special agent who speaks for all of Wikipedia, if that's how you want to put it; I have the technical ability to delete pages and block editors as an expression of the Wikipedia community consensus. If you think I'm abusing my "power", you're welcome to raise a thread on the administrators' noticeboard, but I wouldn't advise it, because I very much doubt that it would go the way you want it to. Beyond that, if you post the content again, I will block you, so kindly don't. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You said: "I'm not going to respond to most of this"

Why not? Are you somewhere between deleting wholesale entire draft articles which you disagree with a few words in and then not defending your actions? Or are are you goung to actully going to have a dialog?

Among other things in the statement that you choose to willfully ignore I stated that the best way to help would be for you to make an actual helpful suggestion. Instead you seem to have want to exert your powerful cyber will over a pleabian. Almost as if you, yourself, are the embodiment of this fact ignoring lie embracing philosphy I so want to write about.

But as a good edite, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Your specfic concerns involded my use of specific words including:

"willfully ignored" "heinous" "immoral" "illegal"

So then if I replace those words with "the best words" you have no reason to want to wholesale delete the article, is that it?

Seanhempseed (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * we have policies on Attack pages and POV forks. Anything you wish to contribute on the topic can be contributed at Donald Trump. There, many other editors will challenge the inclusion of the content, and you will have to discuss. The end result is a far higher quality of article. Creating an obscure page that few editors notice, until it gets bumped up Google search rankings because it's Wikipedia? You don't get to do that. You don't get to create a wholly negative article about Trump in Wikipedia's voice. We strive for the core policy of NPOV. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  16:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is branch worthy on it's own, IT is, clearly, a unique and will cites philosophy.  Seanhempseed (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't view the deleted page, because I'm not an admin. But, if one of our elected representatives was routinely deleting pages that weren't clearly attack pages under G10, there'd be hell to pay. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  17:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to get bogged down in which words need to be replaced with which other words. You know what you're trying to do just as much as I do, so cut it out. I've already defended my actions to the extent that I feel is necessary; you're welcome to disagree. If so, again, feel free to seek the opinion of other editors at AN; I still wouldn't advise it, but it's up to you, I guess. I see you've already gotten some feedback at the Teahouse, where you'll find links to articles we already have, that discuss Trump and whether he habitually lies, and that I've shown no interest in deleting or censoring. I would advise that you just let this go. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You said " No, I'm not going to get bogged down in which words need to be replaced with which other words. You know what you're trying to do just as much as I do, so cut it out. "
 * Cut it out? What does that mean?  YHou are making a claim that I am attacking a person and I am trying to understand what you are saying.  You mentioned the word heinous, I am trying to vberify... if I replace all the text on sandbox on my page... without heinous... then you intend to BAN me?  Dude, a little clarification would be MOST welcome... consider your GOD status and all...

Am I allowed to list sources on my talk page as I have done? Or are you going to ban me because I persist?

Seanhempseed (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Script request
Hi! Any way you could do a script for closing peer review requests? The steps are at Peer review/guidelines. They're not the worst to do manually, but a script would certainly save the copy-pasting. If you're busy or unavailable though, don't worry about it at all. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, that shouldn't be too hard. I'll take a swing at it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) No rush! Whenever you get some spare time. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @Premeditated Chaos: The script is ready for field testing: it's available at User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/peerReviewCloser.js, and can be installed in the usual way into your common.js page. It should add an option in the top menu (one of the tabs for monobook, or one of the options under "More" in vector) called "close peer review" when you're on an active peer review page (more precisely, a member of Category:Current peer reviews). Clicking it should automatically change the peer review page and the associated talk page, refreshing the peer review page when it's done. Let me know if you have any thoughts or concerns; I'd be happy to move the button around if you don't like the top bar, for example. I have my sandbox set up as a mock to test the script, if you wanna try it there before you take it to the wild. HTH! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It works perfectly, as usual! You're fantastic. Small request - could the edit summary say "closing peer review due to inactivity"? I'd change it myself but can't change your .js pages.
 * PS I'm sorry to read about your family member, wishing you strength in hard times. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done! If you like, I can also make it customizable, with that as the default. It adds a click though, so I won't force that on you if it's not useful. :) And thanks. Cancer sucks, as it turns out, but so it goes. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @ thank you for your amazing script, that is truly amazing! I'm having a bit of trouble using it at present (doesn't seem to be archiving - will try with another browers) and was wondering if you could also update the wording "close peer review" and "closing..." to "Close peer review" and "Closing..." (with capitals) for consistency with other items. Overall this is an amazing contribution and once it works I'll send out a brief message to the peer review folk to let them know about this :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Correction. The pages don't auto-reload on my Firefox after the changes are made, so I had to refresh them afterwards (silly me), but this script does indeed work. Thank you! --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Addit. If I could make one other request (if possible!) could you please add an additional option and pop in a template at the end of the page, so that there is some record and the requester can see why it was closed:


 * 1) "Close inactive PR" (and if you could add this to the end of the PR page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Inactive review)
 * 2) "Close nomination PR" (and if you could add this to the end of the PR page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Direct nomination - sorry, can't think of better wording for this)
 * Am not sure if signatures should be included or not in these two templates, so I have just retained them as an additional parameter for both templates, but don't think they need to be included on the script. And thank you again for the script! --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
You have been blocked for a period of 10 minutes from editing for well I don't know why, but it's totally deserved. Have fun sitting out your excessively long block. ;-). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: .  — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 14:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Y'know, it's goofy, but I always forget that test.wikipedia.com is a thing. :P Though it is a little more convenient to just test things out here, with all my scripts and stuff at hand. I'll be sending Xaosflux a few thankses once my block is up. ;) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WK, you know perfectly well that your talk page is solely to be used for appealing your block. "Revoke access!" :p  :D  ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. For you not using your talk to appeal your block, I have re-blocked you for another 10 minutes without talk page access.  If you wish to appeal, UTRS is somewhere, I think.
 * And if you ever run for bureaucrat now we can point out your "recent block log" as a showstopper! — xaosflux  Talk 15:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Gadget toolbar
I keep getting a pop up telling me that the gadget toolbar has been updated, and to follow the update link for details, but I don't know where the update link is. Any ideas? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I found it! I looked through your contributions and think I've got it right now, thanks for all your work on this, DuncanHill (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on asking to make massRevdel a gadget?
mentioned this to me the other day, wanted to see what you think. In theory the answer is no, because we should just get T78092/T121297 already, but that's been stalled for years (I presume that's what led you to write it). I'm not sure how many sysops are aware of it, but having it as a gadget might give it more awareness and more use. It obscures revdel/OS content for oversighters, but that's already true of the checkboxes on history pages. At the very least, while you're obviously active with a secure account, perhaps it's worth moving to MW-space regardless? ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 15:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm. I don't mind the idea; the process is to raise this on VPT, but maybe AN would be a more targeted venue (as long as we have a consensus I doubt anoune would complain). I'm happy to maintain it as a gadget; my only concern is just that, since I don't have OS myself, I can't test that aspect of the script, and like you say, people have told me there is weirdness about it. Still, I'm for it if there's demand for that! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that'd make more sense since that's just the consensus aspect. Oversight indicates whether something is RD or OS by bolding the "change visibility" link if they are OS'd, but as those don't exist on history pages (with checkboxes) there's nothing AFAICS. Otherwise I don't think there's any OS issue — I've been using it just fine. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 15:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an un-gadget? (move it to the gadget area, but don't actually list it in gadgets - admins can use import if they want it). — xaosflux  Talk 16:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * After pondering it, I've made an improvement: shift-clicking now works to select multiple revisions at once. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux: we can make it so that the gadget is visible to admins only, I believe, if that's your concern. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually if you think it will be widely used go for gadgetization (and not like it will WORK for non-admins). — xaosflux  Talk 16:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd hope that by having it there it might become more discoverable. Hard to tell, but certainly not enough sysops are aware of it. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 22:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Cannot thank you enough for these changes — the dropdown is something I'd done myself, and selecting multiple checkboxes is just grand. Also, wholeheartedly endorse this edit summary. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 22:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Question
Greetings. Do the contributions of the original poster in Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents remind you of anyone in particular? I've only seen that particular overlap of locality and editing interest once before, and this account starting editing a day after the other account was community banned. I may be wrong, and I don't want to accuse a new(ish) editor unjustly. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it does look vaguely familiar, but no, I can't say that it brings anyone specific to mind. I may have just forgotten. Who were you thinking of? Also, why ask me? like, it's no problem, and maybe it would make sense if I remembered the person in question, but I'm not sure why I'd be the person to ask. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You administered the block in question and were involved in the banning discussion, so I thought I'd ask you. That's fine. I was thinking of Mishae. Mackensen (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. It could be Mishae, for sure, but the evidence is somewhat circumstantial. I'd say maybe wait to see if the same behavioral problems crop up, but that's just me. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Script request
Hi! Any way you could do a script for closing peer review requests? The steps are at Peer review/guidelines. They're not the worst to do manually, but a script would certainly save the copy-pasting. If you're busy or unavailable though, don't worry about it at all. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, that shouldn't be too hard. I'll take a swing at it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) No rush! Whenever you get some spare time. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @Premeditated Chaos: The script is ready for field testing: it's available at User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/peerReviewCloser.js, and can be installed in the usual way into your common.js page. It should add an option in the top menu (one of the tabs for monobook, or one of the options under "More" in vector) called "close peer review" when you're on an active peer review page (more precisely, a member of Category:Current peer reviews). Clicking it should automatically change the peer review page and the associated talk page, refreshing the peer review page when it's done. Let me know if you have any thoughts or concerns; I'd be happy to move the button around if you don't like the top bar, for example. I have my sandbox set up as a mock to test the script, if you wanna try it there before you take it to the wild. HTH! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It works perfectly, as usual! You're fantastic. Small request - could the edit summary say "closing peer review due to inactivity"? I'd change it myself but can't change your .js pages.
 * PS I'm sorry to read about your family member, wishing you strength in hard times. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done! If you like, I can also make it customizable, with that as the default. It adds a click though, so I won't force that on you if it's not useful. :) And thanks. Cancer sucks, as it turns out, but so it goes. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @ thank you for your amazing script, that is truly amazing! I'm having a bit of trouble using it at present (doesn't seem to be archiving - will try with another browers) and was wondering if you could also update the wording "close peer review" and "closing..." to "Close peer review" and "Closing..." (with capitals) for consistency with other items. Overall this is an amazing contribution and once it works I'll send out a brief message to the peer review folk to let them know about this :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Correction. The pages don't auto-reload on my Firefox after the changes are made, so I had to refresh them afterwards (silly me), but this script does indeed work. Thank you! --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Addit. If I could make one other request (if possible!) could you please add an additional option and pop in a template at the end of the page, so that there is some record and the requester can see why it was closed:


 * 1) "Close inactive PR" (and if you could add this to the end of the PR page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Inactive review)
 * 2) "Close nomination PR" (and if you could add this to the end of the PR page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Direct nomination - sorry, can't think of better wording for this)
 * Am not sure if signatures should be included or not in these two templates, so I have just retained them as an additional parameter for both templates, but don't think they need to be included on the script. And thank you again for the script! --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @ wonder if you've had a chance to review my humble request above? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I've been working on it off and on over the past week, but the Wikipedia libraries I need to use are proving surprisingly difficult to use. Still working on it though! I'll get it eventually. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much obliged! --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Feature request
I've been reading about your mass rollback script. What do you think about adding an "oops" feature that would undo a mass rollback of a particular editor? As in, I accidentally mass-rollback Jimbo, the "oops" tool would roll back only the reverts of Jimbo that I'd made. What do you think? 28bytes (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad idea, actually. Lemme see what I can cook up. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

draft of #legaltsunami page deleted
I am working on a public wikibooks about a totally underestimated aspect of the digital world I tend to call a #legaltsunami as this fairly well explains what can happen to you in the world of automatic letters from institutions that often ruin peoples lives because they may not be able to deal with. Practically I was confronted with this issue personally: My fathers girlfriend was a real accountant type person with excellent communication skills as she was a sales person as well, talkin with customers all day long. I totally trusted that she was able to handle the exhaustive paperwork as also she was already involved in complex health care and social security questions with her father. Actually she really managed things very well and correct, collecting invoices and making claims for reimbursements for my father for I while but at a certain point she really gave up.

Ok. I am experienced Manager of complex operations, bookkeeping, taxes, contracts is my job, an I can delegate whatever can be delegated very very well, I am creative and though I have so many contacts and even relatives that are doin jobs in the area. But, honestly, I was completely overwhelmed by the paperwork.

One evening at my office in Hamburg we were talking about privacy protection and Talk Talk (T.C. Boyle decribes identity theft) and I presented the idea that you even do not have to steal a identity with illegal activties but you may just fake letters from authoritiess and all kind of institutions without any risk, to ruin someone. As often you have not chance to talk to someone in person, to clarify things directly this is a deadly method and its superimportant that these administrative procedures are secured. The case study I use is pretty useful as no serious damage was created and also may documents are published in the cloud already, because there are subject of public disputes on the labour court: So there is no doubt that we can use the sources. Also the sources are digital and can be link with google translator. Thomas Österheld (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

About teahouseUtility.js
Hello.

There was an RfC on whether Teahouse/Invitation should be automatically substituted and from it it was decided that the template should be. Currently this script does not substitute when it places the template and a bot comes along to substitute it. To save the bot some hassle, it might be worth changing it in the source to substitute. Thanks for a great tool, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, makes sense. That script is hella old. Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

MassRollback.js
It seems to have stopped working for me. I'm not sure if it's just me or Wikimedia rolled out a certain update that breaks the script--I have been using Vector and the script had always been working until I tried now. If you can test it out it would be great. -★- PlyrStar93  → Message me. ← 05:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the rollback module seems to be failing on load, but it still works. I wonder if it was made to load on default. I've fixed it, at least for now; let me know if you're still having problems with it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, they removed rollback as a submodule, forcing us to just load mediawiki.api itself. That should be good now. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Can confirm it works again. Much thanks for the quick fix! -★- PlyrStar93  → Message me. ← 21:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Script edit request
Hi. For User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js, would you be willing to either disable it on special and media pages, or provide an option for the user to do so? Whenever I look at logs, I always see that previous log entries have been deleted, but it doesn't really tell me anything. A check for  before running   would probably do the trick. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So, I use a modified/combination of this and another WK script to (most importantly) change the colors and add a move link, but one thing I did was make use of .  There are a number of special pages that explicitly refer to a single page, and this sort of thing could be useful there. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019
The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Forgotten Block notice
Can you please put a block notice on the latest user you just blocked? -- The Win Rat Here!  18:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really forgotten; I don't usually bother to template them. I don't exactly know (or care much) which sockmaster they belong to, so I don't want to tag 'em potentially wrongly, and there's no point in giving them unblock instructions, so don't really think an unblock template would accomplish anything. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, they're globally locked, which is SOP, so there's even less point. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also,, please see WP:DENY. —DoRD (talk)​ 18:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * yup, that too, of course. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

massRollback
Hi. I was bored, and was reading through this Arb case. At Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman, it says Mass rollbacking is equivalent to opening a user's contributions (up to 500 at once) and clicking each rollback link-button. How exactly is the limit of 500 implemented? You can see up to 1000 contributions at once, and 1000 current (and therefore rollback-able) contributions the same way (eg and ). Just wondering. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't; 500 is just the maximum number of user edits you can see at once through the standard interface (i.e. without URL manipulation). I didn't think it was important enough to correct Arbcom about. also, that's pretty bored, my dude Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is pretty bored - I like reading through wp's policies, guidelines, arbcom cases, etc - that's what convinced me to make an account, see everything it had to offer. I don't know if its important enough either, but since the maximum is 1000, not 500... have there been any requests for amendment solely to correct a factual error in the findings of fact? --DannyS712 (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of, but I'm not very well-versed in Arbcom proceedings. I think people brought that up on the case's talk page when it was still active, but it probably got lost in the shuffle. Like I say, I'm not fussed about it, but if you wanna ask about it, feel free; you are correct that that FoF is technically in error. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * seems to actually be 5000, not that I think it really matters in that case or any future cases... — xaosflux  Talk 18:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * wow - mass rollback on 5000 contribs - that would be scary --DannyS712 (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

CU/sock scripts
Hi WK, quick question, is there any difference between your sock staleness and your custaleness script? I have them both installed for some reason, and no clue why. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell from reading the code, trying the scripts, and examining the differences, sockStaleness checks the users in a category, while cuStaleness checks the users listed on a page. Try uninstalling one or the other and testing them on, eg, Sockpuppet investigations/Erikjimflo250902 or Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Seraphim System. The primary difference in the code is the last function (after line ~300). So yes, there is a difference --DannyS712 (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying, DannyS712, but the short answer is that one works at SPI and the other works on sock cats. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer review script edit request
Thanks for your script helping out at peer review (User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/peerReviewCloser.js) - would you have time now to make my two requested changes and potentially one fix :)? I think that will prove very useful to reviewers and also people who request reviews to get a better idea of why they are closed. Thanks again, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Firefox doesn't autorefresh the page when the changes are made
 * 2) If you could add an additional option and then include a different template based on why the review was closed:
 * 3) * "Close inactive PR" (and if you could add this to the end of the PR page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Inactive review)
 * 4) * "Close nomination PR" (and if you could add this to the end of the PR page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Direct nomination - sorry, can't think of better wording for this)

Don't remove notices like this
I fail to see the wisedom of removing a WMF posted notice at User talk:D.Creish Legacypac (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Legacypac: It wasn't posted by the WMF, or a representative thereof. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting... then we have a behavioral issue with that user. Off to investigate. Legacypac (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They look like a good faith contributor. I've requested clarification on their talkpage. If the notice is true it should be fine but I don't know how to verify it is true Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Contrib page shows a global ban. No reason given though.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation
Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update
The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deorphanizer.js
Hey, sorry to bug you, but this script has entirely stopped working for me. It doesn't appear to be a browser issue - it's not showing up either at home (Chrome) or at work (IE Explorer). Could you take a look when you have some time? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * until Writ Keeper takes a look, you may want to try User:DannyS712/deOrphan.js --DannyS712 (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried installing it but it doesn't seem to display anywhere (caveat: I have had a few beers). Where is it supposed to be showing? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * go to any "orphan", and if it has 1 or more incoming links it adds a note in the upper right corner with a link to the incoming links page and a button to disable it. See, eg, Bill Silva Entertainment, Bimini Baths, BioScope: South Asian Screen Studies, Bitter%27s Kiss, or Black suffrage in Pennsylvania. You can adjust the threshold for when to show an alert, the default is 1 incoming link. Click "deOrphan" to remove the orphan tag (but it does not remove a multiple issues template when it should, it just removes the orphan template). --DannyS712 (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's weird! It doesn't seem to work on pages that are PROD'd. I was looking at Distant Relatives (band) and nothing shows up. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * that page doesn't show up because it has no incoming links from other pages in mainspace (a link from your user page or this page doesn't count, it has to be ns:0). See --DannyS712 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Enjoy using it, and if you have any feedback please let me know --DannyS712 (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, Premeditated Chaos, thanks for letting me know that the script was broken. I've since fixed it; Mediawiki keeps changing what dependencies we're supposed to declare. I'm glad you have something that works! Cheers, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah cheers, I'm so used to yours I think I'm going to go back to it :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

massProtect.js
Hi Writ Keeper,

Will this script work for template editor protection as well? -- 1989 (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * At the moment, it only does semi-protection. It could be modified fairly easily to perform templateeditor protection; is that useful? Does mass-application of template protection happen that often? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Modifying the script should do well. I’m performing this on another project where the protection is just getting started. -- 1989 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @1989: Sorry, I don't think I ever mentioned it, but the script should accommodate template editor protection now; it's its own tab. Also, it should ask for a custom edit summary, though you can just leave the field blank to use the old default "Mass protecting pages due to abuse" or whatever it was. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Joel McDonald
Hi, several years ago you locked down Joel McDonald due to the large amount of recreations. Another author has now built out Joel McDonald (actor), and that page appears to have reasonable sourcing. Would it be possible to get the Joel McDonald article redirected to the actor page? Thanks. Esw01407 (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not up for Wikipedia at the moment. Feel free to take it to any other admin, or to the appropriate section of RFPP; I'm happy to abide by any other admin's judgement on this. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Blackjack talk
Hi. I just wanted to explain why I created that redirect - an IP was unable to do so (c.f. Edit filter/False positives/Reports) and I thought it was an appropriate redirect, so I created it for them. I'm sorry for the trouble. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha, no worries, it's not unreasonable. There is, I think, an IP user who likes to mess around in my user space from time to time; it's no more than an occasional mild annoyance, so I just tend to not dignify it with anything more than a quick rollback and ignore. It's all good. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Daan Stern
In a way, it was never really about him. I discovered that the whole thing was a hoax when I saw these edits (and this one). Adam9007 (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, I figured as much. Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have quoted you....
at Requests_for_adminship/Floquenbeam_2/Bureaucrat_chat. This is just a courtesy notification. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, Dweller. Like you say, I think the SoV RfA was a different case altogether. My concern there was with extending the traditional 'crat discretionary range "because it's a reconfirmation" when that was one of the reasons that got it to the support level it was (and was still not enough). That's obviously not particularly relevant for Floq's RfA now, which is decisively *within* the discretionary range. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think that narrative between you and, whom I miss, is actually really helpful in Floquenbeam's case. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Script help
Remember I'm clueless when it comes to scripts. There's a script I use so that blocked editors have their username, Talk, and contribs with a strikethrough. I think it's the gadget at User:Bbb23/vector.js called Gadget-markblocked.js. Sometime today I believe the username has no strikethrough, at least not at SPI. Much harder to see without that strikethrough. It doesn't appear to me that the script has been changed since 2017. Can you help?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And something else. I mention it because it too is happening only at SPI. Userpages that do not exist are blue insted of red.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, Bbb. Do you mean specifically at the page Sockpuppet investigations? Like, in the big case summary table, i.e. the contents of Sockpuppet_investigations/Cases/Overview? What I see there are usernames that are piped to the SPI case page, rather than the user pages themselves, which would explain why they aren't struck out or redlinked--they're not links to a user page. But it doesn't look like they've *ever* been user links, so I don't know why that would be new. Is there a different page that you're talking about? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being more clear. I meant reports at SPI, e.g., Sockpuppet investigations/Bravanello. Both accounts show up without strikethroughs their usernames, and the puppet, despite not having a userpage, shows up as blue.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Crossposting: fix is posted at WT:SPI. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks "normal" again. Thanks so much. I'm very sorry about the death in your family. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Quick question
Hi Writ Keeper! It's good to talk to you again! I hope you're having a great day and that life is treating you well. :-) I was glancing through the code to your cuStaleness.js script, as well as sockStaleness.js, and (apart from having slightly different function and variable names, and a few other lines of code), these scripts appear to be mostly the same. Is there a key difference between these scripts and what they look for and determine that I'm not seeing? I admit that I haven't looked through and compared the difference between each script in-depth, but I was going through my common.js file today and saw that I had both of these scripts imported. If they're different and determine different information, does one conflict with the other? I figured that I'd leave you a message and ask about them. :-) Thanks -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha, no worries! It's totally understandable; the scripts are very similar, but not quite the same, and they shouldn't conflict with each other. In a nutshell, they do the same thing in general, but cuStaeleness.js works on SPI case pages, and sockStaleness.js works on sockpuppets-of-X category pages. If I recall correctly, the different structure between the two pages meant that the logic couldn't work exactly the same way, necessitating two different versions of the code to handle them. They should co-exist happily. as for life, it's actually been a *really* rough year for me IRL, but still makin' the best of it that I can. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oshwah, thanks for the question, and, WK, thanks for explaining. I may have already known, but, if so, I've since forgotten. And I'm very sorry you're having RL problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 - No problem. ;-) I might have known the difference at one point as well. If I did, I definitely forgot. It may be worth it to Writ Keeper to amend the comments located on the top of each script and point out the location where each of them function. This will help resolve any confusion by users of these scripts in the future... but I'll leave that decision up to Writ Keeper. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, perfect! Thank you for responding and for explaining the primary difference between these scripts. This explains the code differences that I noticed. ;-) Like you said, the method of retrieving and displaying the data from these two pages would definitely be a bit different, and that makes complete sense. On another note, I'm sorry to hear that you're having a tough year and that things in life aren't treating you how I'd want and hope them to be. I hope that things get better, and that any issues or conflicts you may be going through come to a positive and peaceful close, and in the way that you wish them to. Your happiness and your well-being is important, and we care about you here. My user talk page and email is always open to you should you need someone to chat with, and you're welcome to message me any time you need or want to. :-) Thanks again for the explanation! Keep in touch, have a great day, keep your head up, and be well. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

User script
Your user script User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/teahouseTalkbackLink.js is conflicting with User:Enterprisey/reply-link.js. Can you please fix this? Thank you, Interstellarity (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, how is it conflicting? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , When both scripts are installed simultaneously. Interstellarity (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, that kind of goes without saying. What issues are you running into when they're both installed? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , When I try to reply to a post at the Teahouse, I get the error message: "There was an error while replying! Please leave a note at the script's talk page with any errors in the browser console, if possible." In the future, please ping me when you reply. Interstellarity (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @Interstellarity: Sure. It looks like that, in general, reply-link is just going to be incompatible with any user script that directly modifies the HTML of the talk page, of which teahouseTalkbackLink is one. Basically, the insertion of the UI elements for the TeabouseTalkback makes reply-link unable to find the comment you're replying to. There *might* be a way to circumvent it, but I can't make any promises; they might just have to be considered incompatible with each other. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , OK, I can live with the status quo. if you find a fix, let me know. Interstellarity (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

commonHistory
Hi! I added a hook to commonHistory so that all scripts that enhance diffs can also run on the diffs commonHistory makes. The change is here. Would it be possible for you to make the change to your version too? I can also do it, if you want. Thank you for making such a wonderful script! I've used it countless times by now. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, that checks out; done. Generally speaking, does this hook need to be run only when the diff table is created? What about when it's hidden/shown? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, only when it's created - the other scripts only add new elements and don't care when the diffs are hidden. Thank you for making the change! Come to think of it, the existing hook  says it's supposed to be run when new content is added to a page, so it looks like I accidentally created a new hook for the same purpose. But I already use the hook that I proposed (new-diff-table), so I guess nothing else needs to be done for now. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

commonHistory for Mobile site
Hey,

Have you thought of making this script compatible with mobile site?

Recently recent changes have improved so much and this script will be useful if it works there too.

Thank you for such awesome script. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The mobile site isn't really something I've paid particular attention to; it's a much more streamlined interface, and I'm not really sure how to integrate my own code into it. I'll take a look though. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again :)
Just wanted to thank you again for that nifty noAutoRedir script you whipped up for me almost three years ago. It honestly saves me a ridiculous amount of clicks. AddWitty NameHere  22:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Script request
Any chance you take script requests? ~ riley  ( talk  ) 21:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is also User scripts/Requests --DannyS712 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, ~riley, generally speaking, I'm happy to take script requests! I don't have as much free time as I'd like these days, but if you still need it, I'll definitely take a look. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi
I thought of you just now (you have competition in the scripting category, and their genius reminded me of your genius), realized I haven't seen or heard from you in a while, and came here to make sure you're still alive and kicking. Glad to see you're still around, even if it's infrequent. Hope all's well with you and yours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, Floq, good to hear from you! I'm glad that people are picking up my slack in the scripting department, though I confess my pride might be a tiny little bit stung. ;) Honestly, this year has been just kinda terrible, but I think things are looking up for 2020 (no comment on the political situation). Hope things are looking better for you too. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 01:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can deliver the big red flashing window I asked for, I'll drop Mandarax like a hot rock. Don't tell him that, though, I want to stay on his good side.  Hopefully he's not doing something crazy like watchlisting your page or anything.
 * Sorry to hear about 2019, fingers crossed for 2020. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, Mz7! It's been a while since I've seen one of these, I think. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)