Open main menu

User talk:Pigsonthewing

Talk to me, Andy MabbettEdit

  • If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion.
  • If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will be watching it, so please reply there rather than here (but do feel free to drop a copy of {{Talkback}} here).
  • If appropriate, I will move discussion from here to the relevant article's talk page, so that anyone interested can join in.
  • If you want to start a new discussion thread, please start it at the bottom of the page. Better still, use the "new section" tab next to the "edit this page" tab, or the link at the foot of this section, either of which will do that automatically.
  • Please do not make links from within section headings.
  • Inaccessible HTML (coloured text, "small" tags, etc., will be removed from this page on sight. Broken heading or list structures will be fixed.
  • Please sign and date your entries by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
  • Start a new discussion.


Structured Data - early depicts testingEdit

The Structured Data on Commons development team has the very basic version of depicts statements available for early testing on Test-Commons. You can add very basic depicts statements to the file page by going into the new “Structured Data” tab located below the "Open in Media Viewer button." You can use the Latest Files link in the left side nav bar to select existing images, or use the UploadWizard to upload new ones to test with (although those images won’t actually show up on the site). The test site is not a fully functional replica of Commons, so there may be some overall problems in using the site, but you should be able to get a general idea of what using the feature is like.

Early next week I will call for broad, community-wide testing of the feature similar to what we did for Captions, with instructions for testing, known bugs, and a dedicated space to discuss the feature as well as a simple help page for using statements. Until then, you're welcome to post on the SDC talk page with what you might find while testing depicts.

Thanks in advance for trying it out, you'll be hearing more from me next week. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Editing restrictionEdit

You have been blocked 24 hours for violating Wikidata:Editing_restrictions#Brya, Pigsonthewing, Succu: HTML comments/modifying comments here. --Rschen7754 04:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: My edit was not, in any way, in breach of that restriction: "not permitted to use any HTML comments on discussion pages, or in messages directed at each other or to modify each other's comments, including, but not limited to: indentations, and hiding their comments.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Andy. Please excuse my butting in here, but I thought you might find my perspective to be helpful.
  • I agree with you that the two threads on Wikidata:Project chat are strongly related, and that there is a good case for merging them together.
  • Unfortunately, I also have to agree that, given that Byra had already responded, merging the threads can reasonably be construed as modifying their comments, and hence a violation of this editing restriction.
  • Edit warring with Byra over the thread merge was unwise and bound to lead to trouble.
  • I cannot see any action on your part that could reasonably be described as a "repeated attack".
Looking forward to being able to work together with you again soon, Bovlb (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you; I'm not clear why you think I might find it "helpful" for you to tell me that I modified another editor's comment, when I most certainly did not. I note that there has been no sanction on the editor who falsely accused me of making an "attack", repeated or otherwise, for that slur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I thought it would be "helpful" because it might help you to see that other people may not construe the situation in exactly the same way that you do. While the (in my view) unsubstantiated accusation of "repeated attacks" was not cited as a cause, I don't think it was unrelated to the other user's block, and I think you're going to have to content yourself with that. I certainly don't want to encourage you to do anything that might be interpreted as violating the "personal commentary" restriction. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hi, moving someone's content can of course be perceived by this person as a modification from the content, or at least as a modification of the meaning of the content. Brya should have made their complaint without reinstalling the content, then Pigsonthewing should have been at minimum warned not to do that kind of thing that is in the best case very very clumsy (see Wikidata:Editing restrictions) and at worst an even more unwelcome provocation. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    • "moving someone's content" I didn't do that; I moved an entire section, quite legitimately (and nothing on Wikidata:Editing restrictions precludes such a move). The comment in question was unchanged, and maintained its position relevant to the comment to which it replied. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Fine, ok, let's AGF. But in this case when Brya reinstalls the content, and knowing the liabilities between you both, that's mean that they take this personally. And at this point you should have think "ok I do not want conflict, it's not that bad, if he wants a separate part, ok let's do it", and you should not have insisted. And one additional thing I would have done was to apologize for potentially disturbing him. And nobody would have been blocked. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
      • And this sparked an edit war, which you participated in, and was exactly the sort of thing that this remedy was crafted to address. --Rschen7754 00:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
        • I made single revert. That's not an "edit war". Or are you now going to pretend that there is a restriction on my making single reverts (and thereby giving another editor an effective veto over my editing), like you have pretended there is a restriction on me moving talk page sections? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
          • A single revert, yes, but + several edits. And if that lead to a conflict, yes of course it is fully inside the scope of the restriction. The purpose of this kind of restriction is to avoid/stop conflicts, isn't it? Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
            • "several edits" does not constitute an edit war. And nor are "several edits" inside the scope of the restriction. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Wrong project, but this sort of situation is where I would apply Wikipedia:BOLD. If someone reverts your change, then you ought to discuss, let it go, or try something different. Doing the same change again (your single revert) is edit warring. While I agree with you that those threads were mergeable, it won't do much harm not to merge them, and there is certainly nothing urgent about doing it. This was not the sort of situation that would justify breaking the BRD cycle, regardless of any editing restrictions.
          • BTW, perhaps I should explain that I am involving myself here because I am a long-term fan of your technical work, and I want to help you navigate these shoals of conflict. I deeply appreciate your contributions, and I want to ensure that we continue to benefit from them. Bovlb (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
            • A single revert is not edit warring. BRD was not applicable, for reasons I am not permitted to explain here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

There is further discussion, including a subsequent proposal, at WD:AN#And again. --Rschen7754 00:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

tyop?Edit

[1] Did you mean "facility"? Scs (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Public artworksEdit

Hi Andy, hope everything's well with you. I see that you've added located in the administrative territorial entity (P131): Lea Bridge (Q56295488) to Friendship Tree (Q63092666). I've been wondering what level of "adminsitrative territorial entity" is right for this property. On the Wikidata list of public art in London, almost all the items have the London borough for this property, e.g. Terza Rima (Q18302297) has P131: City of Westminster (Q179351). This helpfully groups everything in the same borough together in the list, but I don't know whether this is the best principle. Are smaller units or bigger ones better? Is it a good idea to have both, using different properties, e.g. Friendship Tree would have P131: London Borough of Hackney (Q205679) and location (P276): Lea Bridge (Q2030541) (note that this isn't the electoral ward). Or should I change the query for the list to find subdivisions of the London boroughs? (I don't know how to do this yet.) Thanks, Ham II (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

There are strong arguments for using the most granular division possible, but I suppose consistency is yet more important. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I've changed the value P131 to the borough and added P276: Lea Bridge (Q2030541). Ham II (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Pigsonthewing".