Pythoncoder

I never stopped by to say this, but I value your smart use of coding exploitation at the Glasses AFD last year. But, alas, four people think I'm funnier. Not sorry. Panini!^🥪 05:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Can confirm, my AFD was much funnier. :-) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pythoncoder, I recently drafted an article on Pytest, the most popular testing framework in Python, and submitted it for WP:AfC review. Though I'm allowed to move it to Main space directly, I opted for WP:AfC because it is my first article in this area and it's best that more experienced editors do a review to ensure its quality. Would you have time to take a look? Thanks. Thomas Meng (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Pythoncoder,

Please look over WP:G13 so you can see what is required for User pages to be eligible for CSD G13 status. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I believe the pages I nominated are G13-eligible because they are userspace drafts with "no content except the article wizard placeholder text", per the third subcategory of G13. I made a userspace draft on User:PythoncoderAlt/sandbox/Userspace draft, using Help:userspace draft and it created a page with similar text. Then I found an older version of the page skeleton and the article wizard placeholder text was exactly the same as the pages I nominated. Am I missing something? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Let me know if this is a stupid question, but why are you deleting those articles anyway? Would it be helpful if I nominated a bunch of sandboxes for deletion? Talib1101 (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

You should only nominate pages (including sandboxes) for speedy deletion if you're sure they meet one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion. Without knowing anything else about these sandboxes, I'm thinking the answer is no. I nominated them because I was quite confident that they met the third part of CSD G13 ("no content except the article wizard placeholder text") but now I'm not so sure. This is the second time I've gotten a message about these sorts of nominations so I'm thinking I'll avoid G13 nominations of userspace drafts for a while. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also, to be clear, there are no stupid questions when it comes to editing Wikipedia. Possible exception: “Should I vandalize Page X?” — obviously, the answer to that one is no. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [1] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

hi sorry i wanted to click the trout Turtelious (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind taking a look at this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alberto_Caballero_(astronomer) Thank you Iberastro (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I’ve gone ahead and submitted your draft for review. It looks like you were missing a bit of code so I added it to your page. I don’t have time to do a full review right now, so I or another reviewer will take a look at it sometime in the next few months.

Also, how did you find my talkpage? It looks like you just created your account so I’m curious about how new users find their way around. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I found you in the list of inclusionists :) Iberastro (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I just googled the game (the one by Brad Howard) and could find no reliable sources other than the app’s own information and user-submitted reviews.[2] [3] MegaMack02 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

That means it's not notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I just made some significant changes to User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool. Since you have the tool active, I am informing you of this since it may affect you. To open the tool you will now have to click the "respond" button. The tool will load a similar interface as before. There is now a live preview of the response. These changes might have introduced some bugs so if you have any concerns / suggestions or run into problems please leave a note at User talk:Terasail/Edit Request Tool Thanks, Terasail^[✉️] 15:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. A basic analysis including voter guides is available at User:Kudpung/ACE2022. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Stop deleteing my edits Lil Arizona (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your edit because it linked to an article that does not exist. When you edited the article, there was a message [4] that warned you that any edits linking to nonexistent articles (i.e. adding red links) would be reverted. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Sir, from el.wiktionary. Sorry to bother you for external help. I know zero about computers and programming, but our wiktionary needs things, and I have to try to find them. I have been looking at internet for a css to copy: nested ordered fully numbered list with levels, and start= like this one. I cannot find one, except partial bits. Trying to learn at wikt:el:Template:test-ol, unsuccesfully (alas, if I were 50 years younger I might study properly). I was hoping that you might know a nice link for us to copypaste from? Thank you, Sarri.greek (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I tried a few things but I couldn't get the code you had to work. Have you tried this page yet? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for directing me to the right place. I will try it. :) Sarri.greek (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pythoncoder, Pythoncoder! It works! Thank you so much!!!! Sarri.greek (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

PS all this time i was writing style=counter-reset: item+1 and it did not work (of course). Now: style="counter-reset: item 2;" and it works! Sarri.greek (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Howdy. I don't think the IP is quite getting the message, concerning his attempts to replace the List of longest-reigning monarchs page. GoodDay (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we have the same definition of what funny is, but I took your advise, and "forked" it. Well, I created a new userbox with a similar name, if that's what you meant by forking it. Dhrm77 (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted because your user page is utter chaos. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I try —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is a legit nickname used in various circumstances. Why is it not accepted??? This is not vandalism! Why is there censorship on a Wikipedia page? That in my opinion is vandalism to not accept legit changes!!!! 207.98.198.231 (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you know someone named Benjamin who is sometimes referred to as “Benzilla”, but to put that on Wikipedia, you’ll need a reliable source. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Joemamam2 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC) idk I like fishReply

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: declining my draft. Why did you do that i was just trying to make a better version of the routing page ) 02:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC) CoolberryWiki (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

First of all, Welcome to Wikipedia! If you want to improve the routing page, please improve our existing page Routing (disambiguation). Wikipedia's draft system is not for submitting improvements to existing pages. Also, your draft is more confusing than the existing page, because every link just shows up as "Routing". —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi there I have received your comments and have deleted the copied and pasted sections from our website and replaced them with new text which i hope avoids this issue. Thanks for your reconsideration Leo mollison (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Leo Mollison 02 april 2023 Leo mollison (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the page has been deleted. If you choose to create a new page about the same topic, please make sure the page does not infringe any copyrights. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Leo mollison (talk · contribs)
  • User:Leo mollison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I appreciate your comments re copyright as I was testing how to do the while thing. When I got your comments I rewrote the sections in my own words but still referenced then to the RVGA website. But now I cant see the thing in my sandbox at all - the original nor the revisions

How do I proceed? Leo mollison (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, your current signature is using <font> tags, which are obsolete and are not HTML5 compliant. Would you be willing to adjust that font tag to
<span style="font-family: fontnamehere"> for an error free equivalent? The following:

<span style="font-family:impact">—[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="color:#004080">python</span><span style="color:olive">coder</span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|AAAAAAAA! A snake!]] ¦ [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|Why did it have to be snakes?]])</span>

displays as the visually identical (to your current) signature: —pythoncoder (AAAAAAAA! A snake! ¦ Why did it have to be snakes?)

Thank you, Zinnober9 (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Haha, that was my April Fools’ Day signature. I changed it back last night. Also changing the tags to span would not in fact result in a visually identical signature because I was already bumping up against the character limit with the existing joke signature. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I had already declined this Draft:Claudia Latilawa Taylor. Did you mean to undo that, or did our edits just overlap? Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Whoops, looks like it was just an edit conflict. Reverted to your version. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Okay, no worries, just wasn't sure what happened. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Translated from German Wikipedia. --Pinoberlina (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, my submission for "Billy Gets Grounded" is rejected. Please understand, that the series exists in real life, it's a YouTube show. All the sources I got are true and I'm not joking. 87.0.164.237 (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your submission. In order for your draft to be accepted, it doesn't just have to exist, it has to be a notable topic. Please read WP:GNG (just the section "General notability guideline") for more information on what that means. Given that the draft says the series has "thousand of views", it doesn't seem like it's notable, but if you can find any reliable sources about it, I encourage you to add them. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can you give me some suggestions on how to make it accepted? 87.0.164.237 (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Have you ever seen this show? What else do you know about it? 87.0.164.237 (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I haven't seen the show. What the article needs is some reliable sources to prove the series is important. The easiest option is probably finding links to major news websites discussing it. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I looked all over the Web but I didn't find any news websites about the show. So if I don't find it, what can I do? 2001:B07:6472:D95E:C:DC04:5D32:40F7 (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, that means the subject is probably not notable, and thus not suitable for Wikipedia. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please help review my draft again, thanks. Misraaa (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

– robertsky (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

– robertsky (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for:

 

OptimizeAllTheThings (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

thanks for likeing improve Wikipedia's coverage of early-'60s music!, BTW you remember back in the days i acted like a reviewer who approved my own draft? Samchristie05 (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Reply