Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 35
Le sigh
[edit]What is the point of putting effort into replying to users who then stomp off? IDK. Rich Farmbrough, 07:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
- If you would give reasonable answers, you probably wouldn't get this reaction. But I can hardly take your response serious when you suggest possible redirects like "Need Referenceneeded", "Un-citesarticle", "C C-Article", ... And if you can't provide serious arguments to support your own proposal, you can hardly expect other people to support it. 07:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I get the principle with the "ridikulus" redirects, maybe the footnote softens the blow. People don't know how Wikipedia works (probably no-one understands all of it, although there are gurus who know most of the mediawiki software, CSS, js, and a good chunk of the templating system) - in general even experienced editors are a bit hazy (or plain wrong) about some of it. Obviously we are familiar with the templating system, and tags on articles, and this tends to blind us to the perspective of those who are not - to whom a template is a magic word just as much as __NOTOC__ is to me. I would not consider myself foolish, even with extensive software experience, if, as a new wiki user, seeing {{No TOC}}, and {{Clear left}} I tried __CLEAR RIGHT__; expecting things to work according to a system. Nor would I count someone foolish who tried {{Headers needed}} by analogy - so someone reasonably might think that a lexxer is involved and that there is a class of templates characterized by "Need" followed by a reason in one lexical word (A good example is stub templates - who would guess that we have 20,000+ templates and many thousands of categories just for stubs, when 10 minutes hacking at the MediaWiki software could have (and hence to a reasonable observer might have) provided a similar solution. And moreover, I know that anything that can happen on WP will happen - a good example is the spelling "critiziced" which was recently found in a dozen articles - even my crazy typing would be pushed to make that. Rich Farmbrough, 10:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
- I get the principle with the "ridikulus" redirects, maybe the footnote softens the blow. People don't know how Wikipedia works (probably no-one understands all of it, although there are gurus who know most of the mediawiki software, CSS, js, and a good chunk of the templating system) - in general even experienced editors are a bit hazy (or plain wrong) about some of it. Obviously we are familiar with the templating system, and tags on articles, and this tends to blind us to the perspective of those who are not - to whom a template is a magic word just as much as __NOTOC__ is to me. I would not consider myself foolish, even with extensive software experience, if, as a new wiki user, seeing {{No TOC}}, and {{Clear left}} I tried __CLEAR RIGHT__; expecting things to work according to a system. Nor would I count someone foolish who tried {{Headers needed}} by analogy - so someone reasonably might think that a lexxer is involved and that there is a class of templates characterized by "Need" followed by a reason in one lexical word (A good example is stub templates - who would guess that we have 20,000+ templates and many thousands of categories just for stubs, when 10 minutes hacking at the MediaWiki software could have (and hence to a reasonable observer might have) provided a similar solution. And moreover, I know that anything that can happen on WP will happen - a good example is the spelling "critiziced" which was recently found in a dozen articles - even my crazy typing would be pushed to make that. Rich Farmbrough, 10:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Redirects
[edit]Interestingly the six redirects to "One source" have indeed doubled in the intervening period. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC).