User talk:松/Archive 1

Archive

 * Archive 0(2019)

Requests for Comment/Code of Conduct Commission reform‎‎
Matsu, I have complained to that our "Requests for Comment" are not requests for comment but formal votes that will affect Miraheze rules. So he deliberately conducted a drafting-and-public-comment period in his userspace, gave notification at Community noticeboard, and received comment from other editors. This was the time to make additional proposals. There should be two periods: discussion, then decision. In the decision period, we should not have a new proposal, "Let's do this instead!" If you want to vote to oppose, explaining that we should do something else instead, other voters will read it and decide and maybe change their votes. 12:18 15-Jun-2020
 * The whole system and changes are a bit confusing so it's understandable if new users might not get the hang of it initially. While at the beginning I did things differently for the RfC process after your suggestion I tested out involving users in the drafting process and asking that comments about wording and grammar as well as new proposals are done there. I've noticed that this method works better: wording and proposals are done in the drafting page, comments about the actual merit of each proposal are done in the voting/RfC phase so I will definitely be doing it this way from now on and will make the procedure more clear on top of each draft page. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 12:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice.I think I couldn't meet the deadline when I submitted my proposal.The advice given by Spike and Reception123 is very much appreciated for me.I will study more about miraheze.--松 (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I am working on a proposal [now at Requests for Comment/Require that RfCs undergo a public comment period].   12:56 15-Jun-2020
 * Thank you for your invitation.--松 (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And thanks for your input, most recently on Autoarchive, which I've incorporated into the text.


 * PS--Why don't you include "Matsu" (in Romanji) in your signature? On my only PC that supports TLS 2.0 and can talk to Miraheze, I don't see Asian characters at all; and even if I did, I wouldn't know how to sound it out.   19:54 15-Jun-2020
 * I changed the signature and saw it.Please give any advice if there is any improvement.--松(Please call me "Matsu") (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, to make it more concise, just put forward Matsu as your name:
 * 松•Matsu (talk) 00:28...
 * In either sequence.  00:59 16-Jun-2020
 * Thank you for the advice.I like the simple design, so I like it.--松•Matsu (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of redirect at User talk:Examknow
Hi 松,

When I saw Examknow's user talk page show up in the Special:RecentChanges, at first I didn't see any real need to redirect it to his userpage but I also didn't immediately see any problem with it, either. I checked with on Discord, who also didn't see any problem with it. I see you have undone the redirect at this edit diff, so that suggests we should decide how to handle this. The more I thought about it, clicking on "discussion" from Examknow's user page immediately redirects one back to the user page, creating an effective infinite loop (until one decides to stop clicking). Personally, if a redirect is kept, and I have no objection to that, I think it should be a soft redirect to Examknow's user page. I'm going to ping RhinosF1 here as well, since we discussed it via Discord, and as well, since they originally hard redirected the user talk page.

Edit: Samuel, can you give your opinion here, in light of circumstances subsequent to the chat on Discord? Also, can you import Template:Soft redirect 2 to Template:Soft redirect? We need a soft redirect template on here. ;-)

Cheers,

Dmehus (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Banned Wikimedians usually have their talk pages redirected to user page, whilst user page contains banned template. There's no set standard here since only three people have been banned so far, but I think that system is good. Naleksuh (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is one of the two ways, with the other being to add the banned template to the talk page as well. Since the issue here was infinitely going to the userpage, that could be an acceptable option as well. Naleksuh (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On the former, that's far from a universal practice, as I've not seen that done in a universal way. I've seen a variety of approaches, including page blanking, which we could also do, soft redirecting, or adding some sort of explanatory template. Page protection could also be employed, if warranted. If not a soft redirect, I think we should just have the page blanked and protected at sysop level. Dmehus (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, User talk:Joaquinito01 exists as a regular talk page and there is no user talk page for User talk:2018년, the other two globally banned users by system administrators (the direct comparables). Dmehus (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not notice that the talk page user's account was locked because I checked the diff for the page after checking the talk page reduction in Special:RecentChanges.Personally, I don't think about redirecting the talk page of a user, because even if the account is locked, only the talk page is often excluded from the lock.Thanks for creating a new template to address the talk page for locked accounts.

Thank you for contacting Discord. I didn't use Discord, so I was saved.--松•Matsu (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, considering that the summary said "Rhinos F1" (with a space) you clearly typed out that summary instead of some automated tool. So I would not get why you wouldn't check that. Either way, I could understand this revert in that context, but it seems all is sorted now. Naleksuh (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * When I checked the difference, I didn't notice it because it was not automatically redirected.At that time, the URL of the transfer destination was displayed, but it was displayed as "metawiki:User:", so I thought that you might have tried to link from another wiki.Unless I was the admin, I thought that the bytes of the page would rarely decrease when editing, except for the owner of the talk page.Also, since the link destination was the user page, I thought that the content of the page that can be predicted from the page is more obvious than ordinary pages, so I did not check it.I apologize for any inconvenience caused by editing without checking.It is a personal request, but please write in the summary column so that you can easily notice "Account has been locked" etc.--松•Matsu (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you like to create an RfC on what to do with a locked account talk page?--松•Matsu (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not right now, no. I think the template is fine, for now. Personally, I think it's redundant to the existing the user page, which also has the template, and my preference would be to leave the user talk page as is (i.e., no added templates). The page could still be protected, if protection was warranted, and talk page access revoked, again if warranted (unlikely, since the account of the globally banned user is locked). Failing that, my second choice would be to add the current globally banned template above the existing talk page content, but I see no need to replace that content. Maybe Wikimedia does this on some of its projects, but it's hardly a universal practice. As well, I personally think we should be doing a lot to distance ourselves from the governance model of Wikimedia, which is far from perfect. I like our current common sense, rational approach, though I agree some policies could be better elucidated. Dmehus (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

No offense taken!
I acknowledge your apology in my draft RfC for possibly giving offense, but I saw nothing offensive. Experienced users of Internet (and BBS before that) understand the risks of communicating in writing, with no social cues; even more so communicating with people who did not always use English. Many use emoticons to give reassurance. (I have said some extremely offensive things in Spanish, but I was among friends and we worked it out with gentle explanation.) It is always best to be careful! Thank you! 13:14 24-Jun-2020
 * I wasn't good at English, so I was worried if it would mislead me, but I was relieved because I asked you to say "No offense taken!".Thank you. :)--松•Matsu (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Now, in your vote on my RfC, you state, "I think I had enough discussion with the proposer." Yes, we did. However, a new visitor to the page will think you are saying, "I don't feel I need to give an explanation for my vote." It doesn't harm your vote but it is unpersuasive. You have given an explanation! So maybe write, "My reasons are in the discussion below." 23:29 25-Jun-2020
 * That's a good idea. Thank you for teaching.--松•Matsu (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)
You like simplicity? Then name this Sandbox heading. Its name should say what it is, not what it contains! 11:00 27-Jun-2020
 * It's named this way as it forms part of the instructions on the sandbox. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It's clear why it's named that. However, its name should be simpler. The sandbox editor doesn't see the name of the template and doesn't read instructions from its name, but from its contents. 13:12 27-Jun-2020


 * Thank you for contacting.I like your simple design, but it seems that users who are unfamiliar with operating the sandbox need to devise it so as not to accidentally remove the template even if it is redundant considering the operation.


 * Thank you for removing the subpage.Could you set an abuse filter to prohibit the removal of templates?Maybe we can shorten the name.In order to prevent the filter from malfunctioning, it may be advantageous to specify a long name...--松•Matsu (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)