User talk:Mrjulesd/Archive 1

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi !

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 14:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Concerning Wikibook Calculus/Product and Quotient Rules
Hi ,

I saw that you reverted my edit on the wikibook Calculus, and ask you to read my explanation on its discussion page. I removed the example because, while it might seem (mathematically) true, it (physically) is completely wrong, as the exhaust gas of a rocket does not simply disappear and give its momentum to the rocket. The exhaust gas carrys away mass and momentum. If you need further explanation, please give a read to the wiki page Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation.

I hope you will accept my change.

Have a nice day!

PS: Sorry for editing without my username, I dont't have access to my wiki-account on my Laptop.

194.106.245.213 (discuss) 23:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi 194.106.245.213, I will reply at Talk:Calculus/Product and Quotient Rules. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Modrern English mistake edit
I see you reverted my mini-edit and I wanted to apologise, I don't know why I haven't noticed before that it was Modern English, I should've been more carefull. It's just this word really looked in "an Old English way". Sorry for this. Birdofadozentides (discuss • contribs) 20:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Birdofadozentides no worries, its easy to make mistakes. I've certainly made a few in my time. -- Jules  (Mrjulesd) 21:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

C++ Programming/Code/Standard C Library/Functions/strftime
Why reverse my edit here ? Verify by yourself :) It took me a bit of time to find this code and I think it will be useful for other people too.La coince (discuss • contribs) 22:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * La coince sorry it can be quite difficult verifying some things. At http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/ctime/strftime/ there is no mention of %-d. Not to say you're not right, but what is your source? But anyway I've decided to revert my edit. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Sex vs Gender in the introduction to statistics wikibook.
Expanding and clarifying on my edit, on the usage of sex versus gender, while sex is still technically incorrect in that given the existence of intersex and hermaphroditic expressions you can't only say that there's two, it is still less incorrect than using gender in that context.
 * OK we'll leave it at that. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 09:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Help
What can i work on here? PoolsHaza181 (discuss • contribs) 19:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you're interested on, contributing to a subject you're knowledgeable about is always best. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Cookbook - Venison
Thanks for the reversion earlier! I only meant to edit the pronghorn info, and didn't notice the extra changes before publishing. It was my first time trying to edit on mobile instead of desktop, but I don't see how using a different platform could have caused that odd mix of deletions and weird misspellings all over the place. KimS012 (discuss • contribs) 17:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I just reverted because I noticed it introduced a number of changes that at the very least would need discussion. But it is easy to make mistakes, I've made plenty myself. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Numbering on Contents
> Did you manage to switch off TOC numbering for yourself using the steps I suggested at the tech assistance reading room?
 * Yes; just posted a reply in the Reading Room. Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 15:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Padding around formatted block.
Hello again Jules; in the sandbox is my latest version of the Oberon Language Report. The automated MediaWiki contents and headings are good but for the present I'm aiming to preserve the format and style of the document as it was on the ETHZ server. Therefore I've resorted to hand formatting the contents and section headings. A detail still baffling me is that MediaWiki appears to add padding around a  block. Particularly noticeable is indentation. In the original document, EBNF code begins a line with "$" at the left edge of the viewer or frame. MediaWiki indents automatically. Can this indentation be suppressed? Appears there is also padding at the top and bottom of the block. This padding is not so noticeable but suppressing it is also a consideration. Given that  in HTML is intended to preserve a given format, automatic padding seems misplaced. As you mentioned earlier, indentation is available with the ":" prefix. The top and bottom of a block can be padded with an empty line and line-height can be specified. Thanks and Best Regards, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes that's easy. Just try adding  as a css property to the pre tag. So something like:  as your first use of it.
 * Btw you can check what's going on by using the "Inspect element" tool if you're using Firefox: right click and select. It's adding 1 em worth of padding unless you alter it. But these can always be overridden, hence the name css means "cascading" style sheets, which refers to this. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Absolutely straightforward and again I failed to recognize it, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Becoming a reviewer
Thanks for the suggestion that I become a reviewer. I didn't know about that permission. I have posted a request here and tried to mimic the format of the others: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Requests_for_permissions#Refcanimm_(discuss_%C2%B7_contribs_%C2%B7_count_%C2%B7_logs_%C2%B7_block_log_%C2%B7_rfp_%C2%B7_rights_[change])_(Autoreviewer) Refcanimm (discuss • contribs) 20:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats cool! I have c/e to bring your message to bottom of page (normal place) and added that you fulfill requirements for reviewer; reviewer is a superset of autoreviewer, so you might as well get that. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Plz
Plz can I add photos on mediawiki I can't plz help me Tswelelo10 (discuss • contribs) 12:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to learn read Using Wikibooks/Inserting Images. Jules  (Mrjulesd) 12:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey? Bernie berno (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Bernie berno (discuss • contribs) 18:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes? -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see Discussion on Ada Programming/Attributes/'Bit Order
Why did you approve the reference to Arabs on this page? CKWG 17.06.2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.22.143.251 (talk • contribs)


 * Well I didn't think it was particularly necessary. But if you want to reinstate it I don't mind. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 09:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible protection of Ada Programming against anonymous editions
Hi, Jules!

I watch from time to time the Ada Programming wikibook and I'm surprised of the times you have to revert strange editions to the cover page from anonymous users, always the same kind of silly repetitions. Thanks for that, by the way. Do you know why this is happening? It seems some kind of silly uncontrolled robot to me. Should the page be protected against anonymous editions. Maybe if the page is protected, the robot owner will notice that it is making silly things and stop it. Or not, but at least while the page is protected, the silly editions will stop. --ManuelGR (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi !


 * Well the problem is that Wikibooks is being trolled by a Long Term Abuser in an IP range: see Special:Contributions/2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/33 for the contributions. I don't think its a bot, but its certainly bot-like. I have suggested it be blocked as 99% of edits are unhelpful: however I'm not an admin, and when I suggested it it wasn't taken up. Unfortunately its a pretty broad range, which I think is the problem.


 * The other alternative is to protect key pages of attack, including Ada Programming. Now this has been suggested at Reading room/Administrative Assistance but nothing was done. I think the counter-argument is that they could move on and vandalise other pages, but I feel this is a bit of a weak argument.


 * So no action has been taken. Now that doesn't preclude you from mentioning it yourself at Reading room/Administrative Assistance, and I would support it. But its really up the site admins, so if they're unwilling nothing more can be done.


 * I hope this helps. Best wishes -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Done. Let's see if something can be done. Thanks and best wishes. --ManuelGR (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

How to find the community associated with a book?
Hi Jules,

A pretty basic question - where can I interact with the community working on any particular book? Is the discussion tab on the landing page of the book the right place or is it one of the reading rooms?

Also, if there hasn't been any major edits in the last couple of years, is it safe to assume that the book no longer has an active community of authors?

Regards BishtSarthak (discuss • contribs) 05:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi BishtSarthak
 * Unfortunately you may find that difficult. Now Wikibooks is a very good project in some ways; basically you can easily contribute to existing books, or start your own books if you so wish, as long as you stick to the principles at What is Wikibooks?. But the downside is that, at present, there isn't a lot of contributors here, which might mean collaborations are not possible. If you want collaborative work, you might be better off at Wikipedia; but if you don't mind working on your own Wikibooks is great. Now it is possible to collaborate, but whether you can do so is mostly down to luck. For collaborating I would suggest the following:
 * User talk pages of contributors, such as this page. I think this is probably your best bet. If email is enabled, even if contributors are no longer around they may well get an email message. I think this is probably your best bet, but don't be surprised if you don't get an answer if they're not active.
 * Reading room/General is somewhere you can make announcements and such-like. But again you may not get an answer there if people in your interest group are not watching.
 * Book talk pages may have watchers, but again this is uncertain. An example would be Talk:Control Systems for the Control Systems book.
 * But anyway, I hope this helps, and good luck with things. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jules --BishtSarthak (discuss • contribs) 09:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikijunior:World at Work/Shoemaker
Oops. You'd sighted a there. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oops indeed. Thanks for catching that Pi zero! -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 07:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Help me out here
I dont understand how makes reverts to fixes in typos, wikimarkup and puctuation with a statement “doesnt match original content”. I have read the MOS and i dont think my edits go against any. Those edits never changed any content or idea. It really annoying when edits you took time to do are massively reverted by a user with a very thin edit summary as that and furthermore he doesnt want to communicate.:(( --Synoman Barris (discuss • contribs) 21:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Copied from my usertalk page - Hello Synoman, apologies, I should have emailed you to explain the reverts further. I am in the early phase of a major project to text correct and make generally available the early issues of the iconic Australian Wireless Weekly publication from the 1920s and 1930s. This is necessary because NLA's Trove has not enabled text corrections for this work and their OCR is frequently faulty. At this stage I have only entered a few issues and text corrected even fewer issues. When you change (for example) "wave length" to "wavelength," while it is grammatically correct, it does not reflect the original presentation of the page which is the primary objective. Again, if the entire issue has not been text corrected, ad hoc changes may be subsequently overwritten by other changes, so your time is wasted. Note the banner at the top of the page "The text in its current form is incomplete." I would welcome your assistance in this project and if you would like to comprehensively enter and text correct one or more individual issues, I can send you links to the original PDFs and provide further guidance. Regards - Samuel.dellit (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please bear in mind that I am located in Australia and timezone differences can lead to apparent delays in response. This Wikibooks is a result of many thousands of hours of work, mostly by myself. Again, I would really welcome other authors coming on board substantively with this project.- Samuel.dellit (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Resolved, sorry for that, i wasn’t just sure where i went wrong. I will make sure to stay out of that area since its not my expertise. Thank you for taking time to write such a well detailed explaination. Mrjulesd, sorry for bringing this to your talk page. Best regards --Synoman Barris (discuss • contribs) 06:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries about your message, and please do message me anytime if you want advice. Your edits looked OK, but when someone has done a lot of work on a book and doesn't like them it is generally best just to accept it. -- Jules  (Mrjulesd) 10:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

A new proposal
Hi, there is currently a proposal at Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals for non-admins to be given the ability of    and. Since you’ve been an active user on Wikibooks for the last thirty day, I thought you might join in by giving feedback/opinion or amendments. Thank you so much for your time Synoman Barris (discuss • contribs) 12:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail
Hello ,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (discuss • contribs) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Advice needed
Hello. I'm totally new here, I usually contribute to Wikipedia in French. I am currently writing a book on hand knitting. When you reviewed the page I wrote on yarn, you noted the quality was minimal (which I am not denying). It's a work in progress and I am adding content. My question is the following: if the quality is judged to be minimal, does this mean my page can be deleted? Secondly, I don't understand how to use the sandbox. I have written a table of content, yarn is just one of them and this page on yarn is not finished yet. I haven't covered the question of the different yarn materials. Is there a way I can indicate to reviewers that a page is currently being written? On Wikipedia, there's a template you can apply that tells the reviewers you are currently working on an article and how long you are going to be working on it. Does a similar template exist on Wikibooks and if so, what's its name? Kind regards, --Braveheidi (discuss • contribs) 01:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Braveheidi. We use the page-review thing as a yes/no sort of thing, mostly to certify that an edit wasn't vandalism, so review is always just "minimal". The sandbox is just for experiment; we don't use it for drafting pages.  Generally pages get drafted in-place. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * basically per Pi zero. You might want to read WB:REVIEW for more info on reviewing. I generally review pages as "minimal" as my review itself is minimal, I just check over the very basics, for example vandalism, obvious errors, or whether it is obviously not fit for the project. More in depth reviews can be carried out later. So no worries about that.
 * For templates see Templates/Maintenance; but "works in progress" generally don't need them, and they don't need to be sandboxed. Some pages are deleted per WB:SPEEDY, but they don't apply to just started books within scope and policy. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

interwikis
Small technical note: en.wb doesn't remove local interwiki markup once the info is also on Wikidata. (I noticed a very-old-by-now case (May 2020) where you sighted an edit removing such, and decided to leave note here, in case.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ah that's interesting. Which edit are you referring to? (Don't worry at all if you can't remember). Also why is that the case that local interwiki markup is maintained?
 * I recently updated Help:Contents but left the interwiki markup, although there seems to be a wikidata item at Q914807. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Heh, I did say it was a pretty ancient edit-sight. Yesterday I happened to notice-and-revert an interwiki-removal, and in preparing to (gently, one hopes) point out to the user we don't do that, looked at their previous edits in case they'd done others, and found one from May of last year.  It was signted by you, but even two levels more obscure than that because apparently you were sighting the edit after it, and that was the first time any revision of that page had ever been reviewed; so you weren't specifically reviewing the iw removal, just the page as a whole.  (.)  But that's how I happened to notice. As for why to keep local interwikis.  Somewhere back in the reading room archives there's a moment when we discussing this (I suspect I was the one who brought it up, but I s'pose I could be misremembering on that point) I rattled off a whole big list of reasons why, infrastructurally, the design of Wikidata's interwiki-generation mechanism is bad for the sisterhood as a whole.  I was familiar with these design flaws because I'd been dealing with them closely over on en.wn (which, not coincidentally, also doesn't remove interwikis).  Off the top of my head, centralizing the generation of interwikis minimizes local control and local awareness, maximizing the damage an accidental-or-deliberate error can cause while minimizing the likelihood anyone here would notice the error, and the organization of Wikidata as an ontology (they seem unaware that what they're trying is fairly widely known, at least fairly widely in the conlanging community, to be impossible) &mdash; that organization, together with the way the automatic interwiki generation works, is directly opposed to the interwiki interests of users reading the sister projects, and the interests of the sister projects themselves.  (That is, the users and the projects are best served by maximizing useful interwikis, while Wikidatans &mdash;who in my experience are btw for the most part lovely people&mdash; seek to split up concepts as much as possible into separate Wikidata items and thereby minimize the number of interwikis generated.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for your reply. Well it was a while ago, but I probably didn't even notice the removal, as the other recent edits looked fine.
 * Well what you're saying makes sense to me. In a way there is little overhead in having both, so why not? There are definite advantages to having both as you've explained. Perhaps the only downside is that people might not bother updating wikidata if there seems to be no point perhaps? To be honest I don't know a lot about Wikidata, other than what you might expect someone to pick up normally; I've not edited there at all yet. Perhaps as you say, too much splitting up of concepts could cause problems, and in my experience, if its one thing that Wikimedians seem to love doing is that very thing! Everyone seems to like creating wp articles, even if improving the existing ones instead may be a better endeavor; I've noticed that a bit of that here as well. I would note that en.wp seems to have gone down the other path with interlanguage links, which seem to be deprecated, and I've noticed on occasions that they've been removed. My personal feelings on Wikidata is that is seems like a sensible idea, although having it totally replace other structures might not be so, so I suppose I'm ambivalent. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts (while we're on the subject).
 * Imho, demotivating Wikidata contribution is both very unlikely and, in the big picture, vastly less significant than demotivating contribution on every small wiiki across the entire sisterhood. I see the Foundation's centralization efforts, such as the Wikidata interwiki thing, as further damage to the sisterhood the Foundation is supposed to exist to support.  (It's not coincidence, I think, that growth of the wikimedia sisterhood basically stopped and reversed as soon as the Foundation got itself fully incorporated and shifted its efforts into high gear; but, this is getting way beyond the scope of what we were actually discussing, which was local interwiki markup.)
 * What's really wanted, in my view (I figured this out several years ago, but am not yet in a position to act on it), is
 * for the local page, a list of local interwikis.
 * for the local page, a list of Wikidata items in order of priority &mdash; that is, ordinarily one would expect an interwiki for this local page, for a given language, to come from the first listed item that has a link for that language.
 * for the local page, explanations of why any local interwiki was chosen to be different from what would be implied by that list of Wikidata items.
 * a semi-automated assistant (I'd hope to arrange this using dialog tools; see also WB:Assistant) that checks the local interwikis (1) against the interwikis indicated by the list of Wikidata items (2), detecting any discrepancies between the two and putting them together with the available explanations (3) and offering to do any of several things: change the local interwiki, change some Wikidata item, and/or edit the explanation.
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

thanks for your insights. Well it seems like a reasonable proposal, I can't see any obvious problems with it; although frankly, I've never given Wikidata a great deal of thought, although it is pretty clear that you have. Did you ever propose this at all at Wikidata? What strikes me as a good idea is having a priority of Wikidata items for a particular local page; correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe this to be possible at present. Also, if anything like this did come to pass then having some sort of automated process to update pages, as you suggest, would be a must. Anyway its certainly given me some food for thought. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, proposing things. We're getting into the fringes of political considerations.  I can do technical.  I can do user interface.  Politics I somewhat understand but am not good at doing.  I think, if you go to Wikidata and strongly criticize the way they do things, you will get one of three reactions.  You will be ignored, completely.  Or you will be roundly rejected.  Or, if you're skillful in how you present your ideas and find someone there who is quite open-minded in how they think about their project, they will point out that they can't get the Foundation to add features for them, even when they're simple features and they have strong consensus of the Wikidata community behind them.  Which then brings us to politics of the Foundation, which I find to be almost entirely a lost cause.  What I can do, in principle, is continue developing my semi-automation technology based on the dialog tools, and once I have that working (it's taking years longer than I'd hoped, and I already expected it to take years), if it works really well maybe it'll catch on and more and more communities will adopt it and after a while it'll get to feeling inevitable and then maybe, just maybe, if some big wikipedias adopt it, things will change.  Slightly. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * yeah that's pretty well what I think. Politics is pretty difficult for everyone really, the chances of a successful proposal is always small; and this applies especially to major changes, minor ones have a far greater chance. I have certaintly struggled in the past. So perhaps small incremental changes is the way to go. I don't know what the folks at Wikidata are like, but if they're anything like en.wp then it will be difficult to persuade them anything less than "centralization is always the best". Looking at w:Wikipedia:Wikidata it says "In general, it is best to remove interwiki links in Wikipedia articles once they are associated with Wikidata", so it might need a fairly major change in belief at en.wp. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If I could get my envisioned assistant up and running, that might be the sort of small technical change that could gradually change attitudes. Yeah, there's a sort of symbiosis between Foundation attitudes and en.wp attitudes, reinforcing each other. One of the contributing factors is that, while the Foundation tell themselves they're doing things the overall community of the sisterhood wants, they themselves get to expel both individuals and organizations from that community.  Sigh. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Adminship
Have you considered becoming one? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks very much for that! Well I have considered requesting adminship, who doesn't really? I suppose what has put me off slightly is that Wikibooks seems to have quite a lot of arrive admins at this time, usually admin requests are handled quite promptly from what I can see. Also I'm not sure of my long term commitment here (although of course inactive admins will get desysopped after a time).
 * Having said that, having a good number of admins does add robustness to the project. In particular, I've never actually seen a RfA held while I have been active here, and its something I'd like to see more of. And the situation with the admins could change in the future, contributors leaving projects is a common occurrence. And I've probably got a fair chance of passing since I'm reasonably experienced here. So perhaps it would be good to go for it :) -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the number of active admins as a criterion on your candidacy. You can take a look at past RFAs at WB:RFP, and our RFA process is nowhere as brutal as Wikipedia's either. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 20:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * well they're good points, especially about en.wp RfA, only the bravest souls would venture there! I suppose that's what I like about here, generally people "assume good faith" quite a bit more than en.wp. Well I tell you what, I'll probably go for it. I'll write up some blurb, and then perhaps ask you to nominate me. Cheers! -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * &lt;dropping by&gt; That's an interesting thought, re AGF, with some ring of truth to it.  Especially interesting since English Wikibooks doesn't officially have AGF.  So maybe we have the spirit rather than the letter of AGF.  Although... English Wikinews has neither, explicitly telling users not to assume good faith (and not to assume bad faith either), and honestly has mostly been quite a friendly community as long as certain problematic attitudes are left at the door. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I encourage any active, reasonably astute, trustworthy contributor to be an admin. Even if you only use the tools occasionally, it all helps. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! I think that sums me up nicely, especially the "reasonably " bit ;) -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Observations on AGF etc.
well that's interesting about Wikinews, I didn't know that! Well I think that "assume good faith" is a little misunderstood, its not really about assuming good faith, but rather giving the appearance that you do so, which is basically politeness. At en.wp, when someone causes trouble with an article, and it is conceivably because they are inept, you're not meant to imply that they're up to no good, but rather they are making mistakes because they're new to the project, or maybe lacking in competence; but you're also meant to avoid any "ad hominem" remarks if possible. With vandalism at en.wp, if it is conceivable that they're making text edits instead, you're meant to try to go along with that conclusion instead, although at some point assume good faith ends when it is clear that they are bad-faithed.

Overall I think its quite a good policy at en.wp, and it works fairly well in my experience. But its funny that with some processes, particularly RfA, it seems to completely go out the window; people seem to assume bad faith if there any possible reason to do so! I'm not sure why, but some contributors are very petty-minded. But I think in fact the vast majority of contributors are actually very nice, but unfortunately the ones that tend to stick out in my mind are some of the "loudmouths" who aren't. I think that many contributors are rather paranoid about their work there; and I think that's understandable, as whatever good work you do it can easily be reverted (that's definitely happened to me). Also some editors might be worried about being blocked, which might explain RfA. So maybe its all understandable if you think about it. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * AGF is, I admit, a subject I've given a lot of thought over the years, but rarely discussed. You've got some good points there, which I perceive to be close to the mark, yet I feel there's something more to be said, and if I knew quite how to say it succinctly, I certainly would.  Since this is a pretty sedate conversation we've been having here, though, perhaps I'll see if I can find my way to it after all, by talking around the subject till I can triangulate on my goal; though, alas, not-so-succinctly. You said
 * I think that "assume good faith" is a little misunderstood, its not really about assuming good faith, but rather giving the appearance that you do so, which is basically politeness.
 * AGF is certainly partly politeness. There's something deeper going on, though.  While I'm still working on my understanding of AGF, I've progressed through several stages.
 * Naive idealism. When I first learned about AGF (this would be in 2006), I thought something like, "These people are insane; that's totally unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky idealism &mdash; I want to be part of that!"  I often appear to be a mild-mannered cynical pessimist, and, well, I suppose I really am a cynical pessimist, but I'm also an idealistic optimist.
 * Puzzlement. After I'd been on Wikipedia for a couple of years or so, I discovered page w:WP:The Zen of Wikipedia, where it is written, "You should always assume good faith, even when you don't."  I realized this was something I'd known for a while: AGF doesn't mean what it says in a prosaic, literal way.  I couldn't at the time immediately say what it does mean, but I appreciated that the letter of it wasn't enough, and that's when I started thinking about it.
 * Bafflement. About that time I expanded my editing to Wikibooks.  I assumed I had no idea how Wikibooks works, which is the same non-assumption I'd made about Wikipedia:  my understanding of social dynamics had told me that an encyclopedia anyone can edit would end up looking like some of the less diligently cleaned public restrooms and subway stations I've seen, so the fact that Wikipedia was not doing that told me I was very wrong about something and ought to check my assumptions at the door.  By this time I was so thoroughly indoctrinated in the gospel of AGF that I was kind of shocked when I realized AGF had never been officially adopted here; so again, there had to be something wrong with my understanding.  A year after that I expanded again, to Wikinews (which was as far as I went; Wikinews arrested my attention, and in any case I'm only one person so can't expand my attention without bound), and was far more shocked that they explicitly rejected AGF.  So yet again I assumed nothing I'd learned at Wikipedia or Wikibooks would apply to Wikinews, and started learning its dynamics with a clean slate.  It would be several years before I started to put it all together into some notion of the range of variation between sisters.
 * Rejection. Wikinewsie culture and Wikipedian culture contrast extremely, and for some time I tried to excuse their polar-opposite positions on AGF on grounds that the differences in what they were trying to do required different strategies.  This didn't hold up, though.  It made perfect sense to me that AGF cannot work on a news site:  news production has to approach all things with intelligent skepticism; but the second half of the proposition &mdash;that "AGF is right for Wikipedia"&mdash; I couldn't justify.  I gradually concluded that AGF is part of the cause of Wikipedia's problems.  I worked up a three-part explanation of why AGF is a bad idea for any wikimedian project: (a) If taken literally, it tells contributors to assume things; but information providers shouldn't assume things. (b) If understood to mean something other than what it literally says, it teaches contributors, by example, to say things they don't actually mean; but information providers shouldn't say things they don't mean. (c) It's quite possible to be counter-productive in good faith, and trouble-makers (who may or may not be acting in good faith) have learned to weaponize AGF, gaining protection for their own behavior while provoking other people into violating AGF.
 * Searching. It's not enough to say AGF causes problems; something else has to replace it.  We found this out the hard way at Wikinews.  When I first arrived there, the community had a hidden fault line running deep under the surface, between the hard-line newsies who absolutely rejected AGF and a group of users with a rather Wikipedian mindset.  (Wikinews is by nature at the intersection of journalism and wikis, and one of the tricks of the project is to yoke those two together.)  But while we didn't have AGF, we also didn't have anything else in its place.  In early 2010 there was a ghastly incident caused, ultimately, by just about everybody in both factions assuming bad faith about someone's behavior, the tensions over AGF came out in the open, and the whole project nearly melted down.  Not too long after, there was a fork of the project, with the "AGF" faction leaving wikimedia only to discover, also the hard way, that AGF really does not work for a news project.  Leaving the hard-line newsies in charge of Wikinews; and it was only after the AGF faction left that we were able to arrive at an alternative to AGF, without the distraction of struggles over AGF itself.  You can see what we came up with at n:Wikinews:Never assume.  Only... that guideline wouldn't work for Wikipedia.  There really are some things about news that are different from an encyclopedia.  Wikinews and Wikipedia both require "neutrality", but the time demands of news require very different tactics for neutrality, and this spills over into AGF.  Subjective arguments tend to get heated, and on Wikipedia AGF is used in part to keep them from boiling over; but Wikinews rarely has such arguments, because Wikinews neutrality tactics avoid taking sides:  one doesn't take subjective positions in Wikinews's own voice, but instead reports objectively what others have said, and one tries to avoid summarizing which can be rife with subjectivity.  An encyclopedia, traditionally, exists to summarize, and does take on subjective questions.  Also, rather subtly, if a news article gets published, it's a snapshot in time and is soon frozen so it can't just keep changing indefinitely, while if it doesn't get published within a very few days, it loses "freshness", thus ceases to be newsworthy, and after a week or so it's deleted.  Either way, a content argument about a particular article can't just keep going and going.
 * I want to try to say here what the good in AGF means to me. It's related to something else you say:
 * the vast majority of contributors are actually very nice
 * Yes. They are.  Most people are basically pretty good, in my experience; I remember Robert Heinlein remarking somewhere-or-other that even most politicians are trying their best or society would have long since collapsed (which makes me think about what's going on in Texas atm, but, anyway...).  This all relates to something I've noticed about driving.  A few times in my life I've had some really bad days, when circumstances led me to drive in ways I wouldn't normally drive, and that other drivers may have found quite annoying.  If you suppose (generously) a typical driver drives every day and has a day like that every three years or so, then about one out of every thousand drivers you meet is having a really bad day.  Some people, when they see another driver doing something problematic, are apt to swear at the perpetrator; but I think, well, maybe it's their turn to have a really bad day.  Of course you have to allow for the possibility that driver really is acting in bad faith; but take seriously the possibility there's some reasonable factor in their situation that you don't know about that explains their behavior.  I figure, the good side of AGF is like this; as the Never assume page says, don't assume good faith but don't assume bad faith either.  Politeness comes into it, I guess, because we live in the world we create: no matter how much rudeness someone else introduces into a situation, for whatever reason, there's simply no point in you adding to the sum 'cause you'd only then have to live in a world with that much more unpleasantness in it. But then, I'm kind of an idealist. :p --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Well that's a pretty thorough analysis of "assume good faith"! To be honest I've never really thought about it a lot, and I just assumed that it was something you paid "lip sevice" to in the pursuit of being civil. So it was essentially being civil, which obviously seemed like a good idea. So my observations were highly personal, I don't really know how others interpret it, but I assumed that others would come to similar conclusions; although I never knew if that was really the case, as I haven't discussed it much before.

The main thing me about "assume good faith" is that you're not going to necessarily do that! After all, if you come across editing that looks suspicious, let's face it, you're going to be suspicious (or at least that's what I believe). So in a way "assume good faith" is almost like an oxymoron, if you've got suspicions, you've got suspicions, whatever policy might say. This might be getting a little on the philosophical side, but I believe that you can't really change your beliefs unless you've got good reasons for doing so; simply being told something is true inspires healthy scepticism; you might not question things, and accept them as something you must go along with, but I believe that it doesn't really replace your true beliefs on the matter, unless perhaps you're particularly weak-minded! This might be controversial thing to say, but its how I see it at least.

So your point about "it tells contributors to assume things; but information providers shouldn't assume things" is true, and it may actually be impossible for independently thinking folks to truly believe things that they have no cause to believe in the first place. Also your point " If understood to mean something other than what it literally says, it teaches contributors, by example, to say things they don't actually mean" is also correct, as I feel that it implies that contributors should effectively lie about their suspicions. Also your point "It's quite possible to be counter-productive in good faith, and trouble-makers (who may or may not be acting in good faith) have learned to weaponize AGF, gaining protection for their own behavior while provoking other people into violating AGF" is also correct, if you criticise folks they may turn AGF around and use it as a weapon against you. So I don't disagree your points at all, they seem valid.

So is "assume good faith" actually a bad thing to do? Well quite possibly, and your experiences at Wikinews imply that it may cause more problems that it solves, although this could be due to the differences between projects. But my own take is purely pragmatic, as a contributor to Wikipedia where it is a policy you have to follow:


 * 1) Observe behavior that seems detrimental to the project. Go to point 2.
 * 2) Think whether their behavior could be bad-faithed? In other words, does their behavior suggest they are deliberately creating problems for the project? If yes, go to point 3; if not go to point 4.
 * 3) Is there any other reasonable explanation of their behavior other than bad-faithed actions? If so, go to point 4; if not go to point 5.
 * 4) Interact with them under the rationale that their contributions are good-faithed; continue with this until it is fairly clear that this is not the case, in which case go to point 5.
 * 5) Interact with them under the rationale that their contributions are bad-faithed, by giving them warnings and so forth.

Now while this works for projects with AGF, its not really AGF, its more acting as if you do. So AGF is not really accurate; other criticisms including it being a slower process than coming right out with it, and your other criticisms as laid out before. I would probably describe it as being "Not truly assuming good faith, but acting like you're assuming good faith, until you get to a point when this is pretty clear that this is not the case".

Is AGF really necessary? Well as your experiences show probably not. I think personally that maybe a better way is simply to (a) be civil in your interactions, and (b) try to avoid argumentum ad hominem and other sorts of personal attacks. This is pretty well laid out in w:Wikipedia:NPA; NPA is similar, but a lot less detailed. I think if you follow NPA then AGF comes fairly naturally. So perhaps its all largely academic, you can simply ditch AGF and be no worse off. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * A few thoughts.
 * I think it's an important clue to... something, that Wikinews, after entirely rejecting AGF, not only needed something, but specifically what it needed was not about politeness (there's another guideline on the project about etiquette), but about deeper issues of what and how one thinks about other people (and about things generally).  Perhaps another weaknesses of AGF is that it does come across as if it were superficial.  One wonders why it comes across as superficial; maybe because it's so obviously over-simplistic.
 * Wikipedia is (in my experience) notorious, at least on other sister projects I've been around, for excessive red tape / bureaucracy. That's basically run-away complicated details of behavioral form without substance; superficiality, which apparently AGF is vulnerable to.  Never assume has this advantage, that it comes across as addressing something not-superficial.  There is a reason though, I think, why a vast project like Wikipedia tends to resort to superficiality / red tape.  The alternative is to get into how people think, and I've found it's quite widely underappreciated just how much people differ in how they think.  Consider:  When you say someone is "thinking", what do you mean is happening inside that other person's head?  We tend to assume (!) that what goes on in someone else's head is the same sort of thing that goes on in own own head &mdash;let's set aside the somewhat-separate question of whether we really understand what's going on in our own head&mdash; but I suggest (omitting lots of stuff about why I think so) there are a number of spectacularly different ways that human minds may work.  That's a can of worms, unresolved research topic that's just asking to be endlessly disputed even if one gets it right, so it's way easier to just set down rules of behavior and not try to discuss how people think.  Except of course that, as I mentioned, AGF or its replacement really is about thinking rather than just superficial behavior, and also we don't want to fall into the same bureaucratic trap as Wikipedia, so it seems a better solution for this would have to find a way of coping with these non-superficial concerns after all.
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ( There's more to comment on, in your remarks; I'm just starting somewhere. :p ) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Review request

 * I do not understand why this page is still "unreviewed". Can you please review/check out why it is still "unreviewed"? --Mathmogeek (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed it for you. Please see WB:REVIEW for an explanation. I can review any pages you like. My review is "minimal" as I have only checked the basics; it does not refer to the quality of your work. And please remember to sign your comments with four tildes on talk pages. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I will remember from now on! --Mathmogeek (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Take a bow
Hat's Off, wow, double kudos for a job well done! Fra nkB 07:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for that, and also thanks for contributing to it! -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Me thinks the policy is way past overdue for overhaul, so don't thank me! I was going to add to part-2, but you pretty well covered all the bases. Besides, I've been too inactive (Sometimes feel like a drive-by-shooter, swoop in, edit for three or five days and disappear down the street in a cloud of smoke) for the past few years to have my fingers on the pulse of anything! Fra nkB 13:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK I won't thank you further then! But I do think its great how many have contributed to the thread, so do dip in if you feel inclined, we're discussing implementation now.
 * Well sometimes I feel like a "drive-by-editor" with regards to my participation, I sometimes feel demotivated on projects and don't do a lot, that's certainly happened to me at en.wp. But at other times I get interested again; but that's fine I think, and actually a good deal of work gets done that way. We're all volunteers here, it should be fun, and if it stops its time to take a break. A lot of editors "burn out" and officially leave projects forever in utter disgust, but if they took breaks then perhaps it wouldn't happen. -- Jules  (Mrjulesd) 15:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Copy That, and have to agree. One of the best moves I made was staying away from WP. I'll swing back into that confab sometime in the next few days; I already shouldn't be here! I have a report now over 2 days late that I need to make my major focus.  I've been doing some catch up editing here to  walk away from THE ANALYSIS FOR IT FOR A WHILE, LOL. (See, and you thought YOU had invented the technique!) Sometimes something more routine and disconnected can help freshen the reasoning too!  Fra nkB 03:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks on my RfA
thanks very much for contributing to my RfA, and also for your support and comments (I would have liked to be able to thank Pi zero too).

Well I'm quite chuffed really, it turned into quite a pleasant experience, you were all very nice to me. Well I'm sort of hoping that further RfAs will take place in the near future, the loss of Pi zero was pretty major event, and having new admins might help. The addition of video games guides may help to bolster the project a bit, more editors and readers may start to recognise more what a unique resource Wikibooks is.

Well I might take it slow towards tool use (I have to get my head around all this, its my first adminship); but hopefully I can help out with things on the admin side, and I will continue as an editor here too. I should be fine on the technical side, but I will ask otherwise. As always, please provide feedback if you have any concerns, I always try to receive feedback well!

-- Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I agree that the massive loss of our fellow contributor has really affected our community and it's a true shame that he is gone. With that being said, I wanted to add that I wasn't able to support as my inactivity gloomed over the second half of February due to personal reasons, but I want to congratulate you on joining our team and you certainly would've gotten my support if I was still able to vote. Please ask questions and voice any concerns you may have throughout your administrator journey - it's fun at times, and also tiring ;-). Thank you and welcome to the team again! —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks very much for your support now, I hope your personal issues are better. Well I've looking at the tools a bit, its quite interesting how it changes things. Just need to build up some confidence with using them I think probably, I'm so used with asking for assistance. Thanks for your offer of help too. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

IB/Group_4/Computer_Science/Databases/Further_aspects_of_database_management
I don't think we pre-emptively protect a page from creation upon one bad page creation. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No, but look at the log:

(change visibility) 20:23, 19 March 2021 Mrjulesd discuss contribs block deleted page IB/Group 4/Computer Science/Databases/Further aspects of database management (Spam, vandalism, or nonsense: content was: "Hello. Aryann Sarkari aka Spiderman this side. Nothing to find over here") (view/restore) (change visibility) 11:40, 11 November 2019 JackPotte discuss contribs block deleted page IB/Group 4/Computer Science/Databases/Further aspects of database management (Spam, vandalism, or nonsense: content was: "lol", and the only contributor was "103.66.51.135" (talk)) (view/restore) (thank) (change visibility) 18:39, 25 April 2019 JackPotte discuss contribs block deleted page IB/Group 4/Computer Science/Databases/Further aspects of database management (Test page. Please use the sandbox for experimenting with Wikibooks.: content before blanking was: "This is created by an ib student") (view/restore) (thank) (change visibility) 07:21, 26 September 2018 JackPotte discuss contribs block deleted page IB/Group 4/Computer Science/Databases/Further aspects of database management (Spam, vandalism, or nonsense: content was: "saru is gay", and the only contributor was "Bananaman69weedbonghitter420" (talk)) (view/restore) (thank)


 * -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're right. Somehow I only saw the log of your deletion, and not that of the others. Your action was OK, and it is an error from my side. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * no worries (the day I stop making mistakes will not happen). -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Convention to keep the interwiki links on Wikibooks
Per 3822638: Where can I find a discussion about the decision to keep them here? The main issue is that they not are not kept in sync between languages, which I how I noticed that something was wrong in the first place. --Iketsi (discuss • contribs) 23:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * See User_talk:Mrjulesd/Archive_1. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on Geography of France?
Can you give a reason? Pizza0614 (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * sorry i think I was in error. I have reverted my edit. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Giving uploaded rights
It is not normal practice to give users uploader "just like that", unlike autoreview. We kind of discourage non-free media, and is a reason why uploader is a separate right (and is not bundled with autoconfirm unlike English Wikipedia). Users should ask for the right at WB:RFP. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies maybe I should have discussed it with you first. I do accept your view that it was not normal practice, and it is not something I plan on making a habit of. So no worries about that. But it wasn't "just like that", but something I have carefully considered for quite some time, perhaps for the last month or so, that this would be beneficial. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Still, in general we would normally ask the user to request on RFP; that's what this page is for. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome
I often read(/correct) wikipedia and rarely read wikibooks, but sometimes i find here very good articles Thank you for your welcome --Ming mm (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks I hope you enjoy yourself here. -- Jules  (Mrjulesd) 14:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Undeleting books
Use this script so that you don't have to do the grunt yourself. Feed in the input pages into a text file. Tested on Python 3.8. You need to configure a bot password.

Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * thanks, I'll look into that. I'm not undeleting books as such, but rather pages that for some reason got left out during the first round of undeletion. Maybe this script would pick them up, but if you used it for the previous undeletions maybe it missed them. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a simple one - input is the pages to undelete. So I only undeleted those that I was asked to. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 06:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh that explains it. I've just realized that there is Special:Undelete, which lists deleted pages (presumably admin only). Using this to get a list of deleted pages of a book may be a more reliable way of creating a list.
 * Just a question, but do you think it is possible undelete images? Many were deleted with the books. I've tried, but I have only succeeded in undeleting the file description page, not the file itself. Its probably not possible, because according to mw:Manual:Image administration this only became possible with MediaWiki version 1.11, which dates to 5 September 2007, which I think is to late as the books seem to have been deleted in 2006. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not sure, and is a very good question to ask at Support desk or at IRC. Seems like they were deleted, which I'll say is surprising because that would mean that deletions are permanent. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 08:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

BookCat
Just noting that is already automatically adding the BookCat template to pages that are not categorised in any category (that is, appear at Special:UncategorizedPages), so the tedious manual application is probably not worth it, but if you really want to do it by hand, you can use the script User:1234qwer1234qwer4/BookCat.js to add the template without needing to open up the wikitext editor. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * thanks, but yes I'm aware of JackBot automatically adding pages; but if I'm reviewing pages then it seems proper to add BookCat all the same, so that's the reason I have done so. However large numbers of pages can indeed be tedious; these could be ignored and left to JackBot, but I might have a look at your script so I can do it semi-manually. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

My 10-minute block
I sincerely apologise for doing this. At the rate of your deletion, it would take hours to perform all the deletions, and I had no other way of letting you know. I have absolutely nothing against you. I have also noted this at Reading_room/Assistance in case the community wants to take further action against me. I only wanted to save your time, sorry. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I will respond there. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as a note for the future, w:user:Animum/massdelete.js can delete arbitrary lists of pages from Special:Massdelete. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-free images and StrategyWiki
I think you're more knowledgeable about games than I am, so what do you think about Reading room/General and the StrategyWiki part of the proposal? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs – You thought about us, thanks
Hi, I read your comment there Reading_room/Archives/2021/March. Thanks for thinking about us and thanks for asking the question there. Good to know, that there might be possibilities in the future. Though I'm not a fan of this extension, the interest seems to be high with our editors if I interpret that correctly. So I'll try to keep an eye on it. Best regards HirnSpuk (discuss • contribs) 20:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

How are you doing?
Hello,

I noticed you haven't been around in a while - Are you doing ok? Thanks! --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I hope all things are going well for you Mrjulesd. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Revert change question
I have found that you reverted my change in https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=LaTeX/Collaborative_Writing_of_LaTeX_Documents&oldid=3825746 Could you give some explanation behind your revert? Thanks Zhaofeng-shu33 (discuss • contribs) 01:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

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)

Deleted works of fiction
Hi, I have recently got into deleted works of fiction. I understand they are out of scope and don’t request to revive them, however I am interested in reading them. Could you please email me Quotes By Lucky - My words, Your story!, Strict release date, Upper and lower bounds for the number of deadly intimate partners, Omar bhallil, How to move on when you break your attempt record in Candy Crush Saga, Dear Mr. Henshaw, Riddle Set of the Day/July 13, 2020, My life so far essay, and Brazilian Portuguese/Chapter 5? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 From Middle English Wikipedia 📜📖💻 (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I will request in requests for undeletion. -Gifnk dlm 2020 From Middle English Wikipedia 📜📖💻 (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Back after an unplanned hiatus
To  and anyone else reading.

Thanks for your earlier messages. Well I'm returning, although I'm totally sure about the long term. Why leave for all this time? Well I suppose it's a combination of things. To be frank I find wiki editing a little stressful, and not always enjoyable. Furthermore some events in my real life have been difficult, which I don't want to go into here, and I think you will probably understand why. So I'm sort of hoping my break will rejuvenate me somewhat and help me maintain enthusiasm. I've had a lot of good experiences here so I should be grateful for that whatever happens in the future. I didn't make a statement about taking a break purely because it was all unplanned.

I've not been editing at en.wp either, my other haunt. In fact I've been listed at w:Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians, something I will revert I think. Also there has been a rather bizarre edit war at w:User talk:Mrjulesd over whether I should have a "not around" template added to my page, which has contributed to a couple of blocks! I've no idea why all that happened.

Anyway, I hope everyone is well, and we'll see how things work out. Cheers -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Good to hear from you! Please take it easy, don't force yourself to do any unduly stressful edits, and welcome back! :) Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 19:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * thanks very much! How are things going for you by the way? If I can help you out at all please ask. I've noticed you're pretty active here and elsewhere, and it looks like you do good work. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm doing alright, mostly just spending a bit of time editing here and there to keep my proofreading and copyediting skills sharp. Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 21:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK take care mate. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You as well! Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Saw your name pop up on my watchlist and thank log. Welcome back --Synoman Barris (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! How are things going with you? Quite busy on wikis I can see. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Things have been well, thanks for asking Synoman Barris (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * glad to hear that. Well, my best wishes to you, and thanks for your contributions. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear from you Mrjulesd. Hope everything is well and I'm glad you're letting us know you're good. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much ! How are you doing by the way? Yes things have definitely improved for me, I feel a lot better all around. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Taht's good! And everything is well, I've returned to satisfactory activity levels. Best wishes. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Best wishes to you too, good to hear you're all fine. Yes I'm planning on doing a satisfactory activity level too!- Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Shelf:LOLGraphics
Hi, there are 2 books about LOLGraphics. Is that enough to justify a shelf or are at least 3 books required? - 📜 GIFNK 📖 DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK🎙 | CONTRIBS) 16:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have any particularly strong feelings on this, but how about Shelf:Esoteric programming languages? I think its better to be broader about this, and it also explains what it is. I'm not sure if we have any other books that qualify for this, but there might be.
 * Have you programmed in this? It sounds like it might be fun. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Then I would suggest a shelf about esoteric programming languages separate from Shelf:Computer programming languages since it would be irritating to find esolangs when searching for non-esoteric programming languages. There’s at least one book about an esolang that isn’t LOLGraphics. (Programming in 1L a) I have created LOLGraphics (and made sure that creating books about it is allowed, but that also gave me the right to upload screenshots to commons), and have written quite a few programs for the books, and also as example programs to be included in the editor. The download link is included in Programming in LOLGraphics 3.4/External links. - 📜 GIFNK 📖 DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK🎙 | CONTRIBS) 16:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * BTW esoteric programming languages are really fun. Also, I programming languages designed in unconventional ways force you to think creatively and I think this helps for regular programming languages as well - 📜 GIFNK 📖 DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK🎙 | CONTRIBS) 21:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Well I feel that an esoteric programming language shelf should be a subshelf on the programming language shelf. The reason being that esoteric languages are programming languages, just rather odd ones. I don't think you need to worry about them clogging up the programming language shelf since they probably look at a subshelf anyway. For example, if I went to the Shelf:Computer programming languages shelf and wanted to learn about Python, I would probably click on the Shelf:Python programming language subshelf, rather than search the large list. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That makes sense but I feel it will be weird when we get to the point that there’s enough content to justify subshelves for individual esolangs that it will be a subshelf of a subshelf of Shelf:Computer programming languages. We can check if other users have an opinion on this but IMO it makes sense to separate esoteric languages and “regular” programming languages. - 📜 GIFNK 📖 DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK🎙 | CONTRIBS) 07:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , what do you think? I think it makes sense to separate esoteric programming languages from regular ones and will make WB easier yo navigate. - 📜 GIFNK 📖 DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK🎙 | CONTRIBS) 13:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Based on what you and Jules were discussing, that looks something like this right?
 * Computer Programming Languages
 * Esoteric Languages
 * Individual Esoteric Programming Languages (Later expansion?) Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 13:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , this is what Jules suggested. My idea looks slightly different.
 * Computer programming languages
 * Individual non-esoteric languages
 * Esoteric programming languages
 * Individual esolangs (later expansion)
 * In my opinion it will be easier to navigate that way. What do you think? - 📜 GIFNK 📖 DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK🎙 | CONTRIBS) 13:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning, and if all we were planning on was the present day, then I'd agree to take the better user experience over the technically correct option. However there exist opportunities for overall improvements that make the Julles solution preferable.
 * I should preface this by saying that this perspective comes as someone who's a Wikimedia immigrant of sorts, and while I've been here for a bit now, my viewpoint on this sort of thing originates from the OpenStreetMap community. In OpenStreetMap data and presentation are nearly completely separated. There it's taboo to change data in an technically incorrect way to improve rendering (A practice known as "Mapping for the renderer"). Instead the onus to improve presentation is on the renderer.
 * While the current setup for shelves makes all subshelved books appear in the primary shelf, the correct way to fix this is to improve the shelving presentation system, not work around it by changing category hierarchy. For example, right now subshelf books are currently jumbled together as a list, but it doesn't have to be this way. Different rendering software could simply display subcategories in a much more user friendly way. For example, instead of a list, it could render boxes for individual subshelves with relations and such highlighted. Easier said then done of course, and it requires a completely different skillset, but it's exciting to consider.
 * Thus I think it best to file Esoteric languages underneath computer languages, since this is more technically correct. It's good to discuss this though. Measure twice cut once and all.
 * Caveat: There might be esoteric programming languagess not for computers? We don't currently have books for anything like that though. That said, it's simple to shunt categories around once they're made, so it's not particularly high stakes or anything. Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I see what you are suggesting and maybe with a different shelf system it would work but with the current rendering it would be:
 * Computer Programming Languages
 * Cocoa Programming
 * D Programming Language
 * Esoteric Programming Languages
 * Brainfuck
 * LOLGraphics
 * Thue
 * Fortran Programming Language
 * Go Programming Language
 * This is what I’m worried about and why I think we should either not have such shelf at all (not a good idea), or have them separate. Also I think that if someone is searching for esolangs or non-esolangs he wants to see only languages from the category he’s searching for and not the other. Maybe there’s a better idea Idk. - 📜 GIFNK 📖 DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK🎙 | CONTRIBS) 15:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I see your point.
 * However presently we already have subcategories of language types in the Computer Programming languages shelf.
 * Shelf:Assembly languages
 * Shelf:Scripting languages
 * Shelf:Shading languages
 * Are all mixed in with the same categories as
 * Shelf:Haskell programming language
 * Shelf:Fortran programming language
 * Shelf:Cocoa programming
 * Under the current system. Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I see. Then it’s ok to have Esotric Languages a subshelf of Computer Programming Languages. Also, please ping me in your reply. - 📜 GIFNK 📖 DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK🎙 | CONTRIBS) 16:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I see. Then it’s ok to have Esotric Languages a subshelf of Computer Programming Languages. Also, please ping me in your reply. - 📜 GIFNK 📖 DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK🎙 | CONTRIBS) 16:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I have created Shelf:Esoteric programming languages which can now be populated. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you! :) Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 03:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! - 📜 GIFNK 📖 DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK🎙 | CONTRIBS) 08:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Help Andrzejbanas
Dear friend I want to do is help Andrzejbanas fix an incorrect a incomplete section. ChanWasonasong (discuss • contribs) 00:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Horror film on Wikipedia
The only thing we can do for the horror film article on Wikipedia is split 2010s and 2020s back to the way they were. ChanWasonasong (discuss • contribs) 02:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Add can I be autoreviewed?
Can I get autoreviewed? It would make things much more convenient. Calgary341 (discuss • contribs) 05:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes_check.svg Done . -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 07:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you review all of my other edits? Calgary341 (discuss • contribs) 23:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes_check.svg Done -- Jules  (Mrjulesd) 07:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Table of contents starts at new page
When I create a pdf of a printable version, it’s very annoying that the table of contents starts on the title page? Can that be fixed? I’m asking because every chapter starts on a new page, so can’t the table of contents also start on a new one? - 📜 GIFNK📚DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK⌚️📱⌨️🖥🖨🕹💽💾💿📀📸📹🎥📽🎞📠📺📻📡🔋CONTRIBS)  13:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not really an expert in this. But I presume you're going to, for example, Minecraft resource gathering/Printable version and clicking on "Download as PDF" on the left sidebar, right? Well I'm not totally sure really, its an interesting question.
 * On technique that might work would be to turn off the TOC, and then generate a manual one. See WB:TOC on how you can use   to turn it off. You could then use a level 1 heading, as these seem to generate a new page, and then create your own coding for a TOC there.
 * Another technique would be to create a level 1 heading and then use the magic word   to place a TOC there.
 * Obviously if you are using Template:Printable to generate the prinatble version this is not possible. But you don't have to use that template to generate a printable version, for example see Brief History of Europe/Print version, look at the coding.
 * -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by level 1 heading? Also when I create a pdf from the page you link the TOC starts from the title page and also none of the chapters starts from a new page. Btw, yes, I use “download as pdf” in the left sidebar. - 📜 GIFNK📚DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK⌚️📱⌨️🖥🖨🕹💽💾💿📀📸📹🎥📽🎞📠📺📻📡🔋CONTRIBS)  15:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * A level 1 heading is when you use single equal marks to surround a heading. See WB:SECTION.
 * You said "Also when I create a pdf from the page you link the TOC starts from the title page" I agree, but I'm trying to suggests a possible solution.
 * I think the chapters do start on a new page. I've just downloaded "Minecraft_resource_gathering_Printable_version.pdf", and all of the chapters (Amethyst, Ancient Debris, etc.) seem to start on new pages in the pdf.
 * -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 06:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Chapters start from a new page. That’s why I was asking how is it possible to start TOC from a new page as well. I have checked with User:Gifnk dlm 2020/sandbox, and I don’t think that works. Maybe it’s possible to create a subpage with a manual TOC, then embed in the main page of the book? Sort of like how it works with the preface. - 📜 GIFNK📚DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK⌚️📱⌨️🖥🖨🕹💽💾💿📀📸📹🎥📽🎞📠📺📻📡🔋CONTRIBS)  19:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I've cracked it! Go to Brief History of Europe/Print version and then clock on "Download as PDF" (left sidebar). You will note the pdf has a page break before the TOC. If you want to see what I've done look at the source. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks good! Thank you very much! - 📜 GIFNK📚DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK⌚️📱⌨️🖥🖨🕹💽💾💿📀📸📹🎥📽🎞📠📺📻📡🔋CONTRIBS)  14:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Quick question
Also, your help rocks! People like you and Atcovi and Wikipedia user Ferret (ferret - he prefers lowercase) make me feel right at home (I am at home, IRL, at least). Does using "subst:" before a template insert code onto the source code itself instead of using a dynamic copy of a template? Like ? I want to make templates in my userspace for me to quickly reply with "thanks" and "I disagree" ect. Yes, with images of lions too. L10nM4st3r Roar at me/what my paws scratched 23:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Actually, never mind. I got it myself. Also, It seems occasionally my Kindle crashes when I do certain actions, but it didn't crash yesterday or every other day I used wikibooks. Odd. I restarted it and it seems to work, but I'm not gonna let it go unless it works all day today. L10nM4st3r Roar at me/what my paws scratched 06:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, this is real!
I cannot login anymore without crashing, but I'm fine as logged out!? Help! -L10nM4st3r 07:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Ok, I just signed in after restarting again. I don't want to jinx it, but im fine at this second. So far. L10nM4st3r Roar at me/what my paws scratched 08:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Im gonna assume my Kindle was mucking up. This wouldn't be the first time. Once I couldn't even open a book (a Kindle book. Not one from wikibooks)! Now I mention it, I had only 21% battery left. I think I get it now! Devices muck-up on low power! I will remember that. Sorry for your time. L10nM4st3r Roar at me/what my paws scratched 09:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * no problems my end, so I think it is most likely your hardware. mw:Help:Substitution explains substitution in some detail. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 09:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks for your help! Lucky you, you are the first to see this template!


 * L10nM4st3r Roar at me/what my paws scratched 10:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Maybe not indent it... I've unindended it. L10nM4st3r Roar at me/what my paws scratched 10:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

time templates
I've created a time-based template and placed it on my talk page. Please can you (or anyone else) check User:L10nM4st3r/activeLevel and User:L10nM4st3r/showActiveLevel for errors. Thanks! L10nM4st3r Roar at me/what my paws scratched 22:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can see any errors. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 09:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Also, a bit late now as I've already done it, but is it OK to add a link to my talk page from my IP's talkpage? It has made no unfamiliar edits. L10nM4st3r Roar at me/what my paws scratched 12:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no rule against it. But I think it might be best not to do that, as there are certain privacy aspects associated with revealing your IP address. Perhaps you should read w:Wikipedia:How to not get outed on Wikipedia before doing so. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's too late anyway (check your talkpage history: when I couldn't sign in I posted a comment logged out, remember?). What would be possible then? Delete a page revision? Anyway, I don't see what harm I can do now, sombody probably found my IP on Wikipedia anyway, last month I posted a reply logged out. It would be pretty obvious it was me. L10nM4st3r Roar at me/what my paws scratched 14:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed the visibility of the revision. Its probably not a big deal really, buts its best to keep it hidden. Some editors edit under their real name, but occasionally this can lead to serious harassment problems. It's a bit like driving and not wearing a seat-belt. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw when looking for vandalism. Can you hide my edit to my IP talkpage please? Thanks! L10nM4st3r Roar at me/what my paws scratched 21:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've deleted the page, but I've also I removed the log entry too. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will be more carefull in the future. Also, can salamanders really detach their eyes and put it in their mouths to avoid being eaten? See my contributions: reverting edit, with a "Can they?" in the edit summary. I am completely clueless. L10nM4st3r Roar at me/what my paws scratched 21:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You were right to revert that edit! Some bored kid somewhere decided to make a joke edit, it happens quite a lot. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia vandal
User_talk:Ferret I don't know if he's active right now, but i left him a message that I think needs immediate attention: a possible vandal making hundreds of edits that look like vandalism at this second. All related to a particular thing, but there is so much of it! Please instigate. L10nM4st3r Roar at me/what my paws scratched 22:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin at Wikipedia so I can't do too much about the vandalism attempts. w:WP:AIV is a good place to report Wikipedia vandalism concerns. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * False alarm. I caused more harm than good. But I fixed it now. Good night. I'm tired. L10nM4st3r Roar at me/what my paws scratched 00:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh well, its all part of the learning process. No harm done really, just a good-faithed mistake. Maybe I should have checked those edits before recommending AIV... -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Real vandal and racism
See Special:Contributions/185.193.232.12. They have made edits to a page repeatedly even after changes were rejected. One appears to be recist ("i dont like black people", quoting bold text I found on the same page.) L10nM4st3r Roar at me/what my paws scratched 12:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC) I have reverted these edits the best I could. A few minor differences, but I think it ultimately looks better now. L10nM4st3r Roar at me/what my paws scratched 13:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC) I have now put a warning on their talkpage. Have I done the right thing here? L10nM4st3r Roar at me/what my paws scratched 13:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for that. I have semi-protected A-level Geography/AS OCR Geography/Investigation Paper for a week. If they start up again I may block their account. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Liars and vandals
See my recent undo "This did not fix a typo". I feel as though "A muggles' guide to harry potter" is in trouble. I personally enjoyed Harry Potter, and that IP seems familiar... I'll check their contributions to be sure it's the same one I am thinking about (Which is the one who vandalized the Hermione Granger page). L10nM4st3r- Roar at me /what my paws scratched 21:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, It's not the same IP as the one I thought it was. I'll let you decide what to do with them. I'll fix my signature. Doesn't help my device is only grayscale, but I think it's broken. L10nM4st3r- Roar at me /what my paws scratched 21:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the revert. Special:Contributions/2601:5C3:280:1F20::/64, looks like a one off. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, what are the colours of the 3 links in my signature? I think I fixed it. They should all be orange, but the "Roar at me" should be a different shade of orange. L10nM4st3r- Roar at me /what my paws scratched 12:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To get light orange, use #fed8b1. And use "color" for the CSS property. So L10nM4st3r - Roar at me / what my paws scratched. -- Jules  (Mrjulesd) 09:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I decided to scrap the contributions button because a) It makes my signature unnecessarily long b) People can see my contributions by going to Special:Preferences or going to my userpage and clicking "User contributions" on the tools section c) I felt like it. I just felt lazy. My device is grayscale, so I can't see colours on it. On it, orange is as good as black. Ps: It's spelt "colour" where I live. I used the American spelling as I am so used to it from coding, both in and out of "stuff" in wikimedia. In fact, "colour" actually looks a bit weird to me... L10nM4st3r -Roar at me 08:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Just something funny
When you deleted my userpage and I pressed a link to it from another talkpage, I was confused why my page on meta didn't show. It took about 10-20 minutes to realize my signature linked to "User:L10n4st3r"... Just thought that would add a laugh to your day. I fixed the link on my signature now though, it should take you to my userpage, not the nonexistent userpage of a nonexistent user. L10nM4st3r -Roar at me 20:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * that sort of thing happens to me too, difficult things are easy, easy things are impossible to see! Cheers -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Multitasking for variety
Would it be ok to work on 2 books at once and switch between them whenever I want a change? It will give more variety to my days. I had an idea and I don't want to forget it. L10nM4st3r -Roar at me 21:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, we have no rules at all about that. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)