User talk:DannyS712

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Thanks for trying to keep my talk page free of pests, but I'd actually rather leave the comments there (better to let people reveal their own issues than to hide them). In the end, I'm certainly not going to be fooled by such comments. Thanks again! ~ UDScott (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay --DannyS712 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 65[edit]

Would Wikibooks' filter 65 be of use in Wikiquote (or at least a variant of it)? Leaderboard (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, my interactions with GRP haven't been related to chess (at least on this wiki) and without the filter being well documented I'd be hesitant to import as-is --DannyS712 (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not as-is, but I wonder if the skeleton of the filter could be of use. Leaderboard (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, but maybe another admin disagrees and would be able to adapt it --DannyS712 (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use redlinks to show deleton reviews?[edit]

Hi DannyS712

Can you think of a way to use a redlink to alert WQ-participants to an outstanding Deletion review? If one knows enough to click on the What links here and if there are not too many other links, one will see a link to a Deletion review. Otherwise it will probably stay there for a long time, and no one will comment.

I hope I am making sense? Thanks in advance,

Ottawahitech (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, sorry DannyS712 (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Stephanie Grisham,[edit]

Hi DannyS712,

I found a strange page on WQ Former Trump and moved it to Stephanie Grisham,. I don't have the time to check it, but something about it does not look right, maybe? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea - I don't think its quotable/notable enough to have its own page anyway DannyS712 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit section template (Crosspost from the Village Pump) (Crosspost from User Talk:Antandrus‎)[edit]

It appears that the section attribute in the url when editing behaves differently on Wikiquote then on Wikipedia, on Wikipedia it can be a number or a section name, while on Wikiquote it can only be an number, why is this, and how do I make it behave like on Wikipedia? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, sorry DannyS712 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I *really* need this fixed for a template I’m working on, I've tried all other options, either they need this, or they don't work. Do you know who I could ask about this? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Please stop undoing my redacting. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for you to be redacting any of your comments. If you'd like to vanish, you can request a vanish but there is no need or reason to remove large amounts of discussion here. Ferien (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like my comments to be removed. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle as I explained on your talk page, your redactions are inappropriate. You can ask to vanish (see m:Right to vanish) but you don't get to remove your edits --DannyS712 (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is disruptive to the wiki and the discussions you have participated in. If you want to stop editing, you can, but now you're just causing problems DannyS712 (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People can read them if they look at the revision history, I would just like them to now be immediately accessible. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle I understand that you want this, but it is disruptive to the wiki and you don't get to just decide that you'll remove them all. DannyS712 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop undoing, I won't do anymore, and you can add back any comments I removed, but can you please undoing? – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle how is "undoing" any different from "add[ing] back any comments [you] removed" that you are okay with? DannyS712 (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle you wrote above, "Can you please stop undoing, I won't do anymore, and you can add back any comments I removed" so I'm a bit confused. I'm glad you won't try to keep redacting things, but that doesn't change the fact that the edits you've already made are disruptive DannyS712 (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve removed basically all the personal information, the remaining comments don't really matter. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle if there is personal information, that is something else, and might warrant suppression, in which case you should email stewards, but eg your changes to Talk:Pope Benedict XVI have no personal information being removed DannyS712 (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Please stop undoing my redaction, see w:Right to be forgotten. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovemydoodle that does not apply here, you released your contributions under a public license. If you feel that there are legal considerations that warrant your removal of content, please contact the WMF legal team DannyS712 (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you against my redaction? – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle because it is disruptive. This isn't about you, its about the wiki DannyS712 (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it disruptive? – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle you are trying to remove discussions that others have seen and participated in. DannyS712 (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And their comments are still there. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle but without context or clarity. The removal is disruptive DannyS712 (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have hundreds of redactions to do, am I meant to leave an explanation on each one? – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle No, you are just not supposed to redact anything DannyS712 (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming I leave an explanation, can I redact? – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle no, you cannot just redact stuff DannyS712 (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it’s not truly gone, people can just see it in the edit history. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle which means you are not actually removing the content, just making it harder to access, which is disruptive. DannyS712 (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not if I give an explanation. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle yes, even if you give an explanation, it is still disruptive. Your responses here are approaching the level of w:WP:IDHT - your actions are disruptive, should not continue, and are being reverted. DannyS712 (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way I can redo them in non-disruptive way? – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle no, there is not DannyS712 (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then how I meant to be *permanantly* forgotten? – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle you *cannot* be permanently forgotten in the manner you are requesting, because you released your contributions forever under the terms of use. You can get your account renamed and just stop editing if you want, and if you're no longer around you will be soon forgotten DannyS712 (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want an in-between version where people can still access my edits, but they are only seen that way (e.g. rev history). – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle maybe if you had started a discussion about this with the community, that could have been possible, but I doubt it now. Just wait, most discussions are archived eventually and no one looks at the archives that much DannyS712 (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GRP keeps using my comments to send e-mails. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle just ignore the emails, or send them on to the trust and safety team. Your actions here are just giving them visibility, see w:WP:DENY DannyS712 (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's *specifically* using the edits, that's why I want them removed. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle you think they don't know about wiki history? I'm sorry, truly, that this LTA is using you as a target (they have used me as a target too, I've gotten more death threats that I can remember, among other things) but you cannot respond by redacting things DannyS712 (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After redaction, I plan to get my comments hidden. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovemydoodle if you want the comments hidden, you need to request that and give a valid reason, and I don't think this qualifies, but either way, you should have asked for the hiding and let admins/stewards deal with the redaction that was needed if stuff was going to be hidden --DannyS712 (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is self-redaction not allowed? – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It probably would be, *if the content was appropriate for hiding*. Eg if there was a private phone number posted you could remove that yourself. But you can't just remove stuff that shouldn't be removed DannyS712 (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he just uses random edits of mine that he deems "wmf vandalism." – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle and they are wrong. So what? Just because an LTA says that your edits are vandalism doesn't mean the edit should be removed, otherwise the LTA wins DannyS712 (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying he’s right. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 10:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he's still using them. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 11:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter that an LTA is focused on your edits. Please review w:WP:IDHT. I've spent a lot longer on wiki than I had planned to right now and will step away in a few minutes, I suggest you also take a break and come back to the discussion tomorrow, hopefully with a clearer understanding of why the community sees your edits as disruptive. DannyS712 (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 11:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]