User talk:Lethosor

From Dwarf Fortress Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bot requests[edit]

Underpopulated categories[edit]

Many categories in the DF2014 namespace don't list some of the pages that have the category link. An empty edit on a page (well, any edit) will correct this, but only for that page. This sounds like a job for a bot. VengefulDonut (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's a cache problem, so I'll try rebuilding link tables on the server side and see if that helps (it would probably be a lot faster than sending a bot around to null-edit every page). —Lethosor (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This has been fixed. The problem was that the server that actually runs the job queue was still using the old configuration (without the DF2014 namespace). —Lethosor (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


Take a look over here. VengefulDonut (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Ceramic Industry page assistance.[edit]

(Message here) --DorfyDave (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the help with the ceramic industry stuff.

I see what you are doing with the thumbnail workflows on other pages, so if you would rather it be small and let the reader expand it, that would be fine.

I was thinking that the pages looked better with the intro section before the regular content, keeping it separate from the auto TOC / Header listed content, but if you prefer that everything follow the layered header format, that's fine.

My primary concern was the wrapping caused by inserting the full-size flowchart next to a section. It looks like you've addressed that by splitting up the flowchart, which looks good to me. —Lethosor (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing/restoring Main:Fruit[edit]

Not that I am protesting it, but why exactly did you remove and then restore the Main:Fruit page? Because to me, all that happened now is that the creation entry on the page's history is gone, which isn't really anything notable either. --Latias1290 (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it at first because I didn't realize AutoRedirect wasn't handling section redirects properly, then restored it when I noticed it was broken. That article's history still shows your revision, so I'm not sure what you mean - is it missing from Special:RecentChanges? —Lethosor (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The creation entry I was talking about was actually the first entry, and the entry that is now the only one was the second before you removed it. When I created the page I first had it directly redirect to cv:Tree#Fruit, which after testing didn't work. I usually save the page when the preview doesn't show a red link and the link is correct, and after saving I test it, This time, however, the link in the preview was blue and correct, but actually following the redirect only led to cv:Tree instead of cv:Tree#Fruit. The entry you are seeing now is the result of fixing this by making it into a double redirect through cv:Fruit.
It looks to me like your first edit was to DF2014:Fruit - when Main:Fruit didn't exist, it would have automatically redirected to DF2014:Fruit, so it might have appeared to exist when it didn't. (The problem here is that I made AutoRedirect follow redirect chains internally, since Mediawiki's maximum-redirect setting is buggy, so a nonexistent Main:Fruit would actually redirect to what cv:Fruit redirects to - the problem is that it ignores sections at the moment, so section redirects will need to be manually created until I can fix that.) —Lethosor (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


I don't know where to put it because I don't have a github account and don't know if you have a personal thread for your scripts like the others, but couldn't you add a TEXT mode entry in line 116 of your settings-manager script? -- 04:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I originally excluded it because it only works on Linux, but I'll add it back for Linux users. Thanks! —Lethosor (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting glitch with redirects[edit]

I went to see what "Candy" was by going to a page named "Candy", and I found out that it meant Adamantine. But I saw that I got redirected to v0.34:Adamantine, which shouldn't happen seeing as mainspace redirects should always go to the cv namespace. So I went back to fix it, and I saw that main:Candy redirected to main:Adamantine, so I went there to fix it. But that page redirected properly to DF2014:Adamantine. This is where it gets interesting.

So when you go to main:Candy, you get redirected to main:Adamantine which in turn redirects to DF2014:Adamantine. But - for some reason, you don't get sent to DF2014:Adamantine, but to v0.34:Adamantine. Going to main:Adamantine in the first place redirects you to DF2014:Adamantine properly.

I have no idea how this happens, and since you maintain most of the wiki, I think you would be the right person to tell this to. --Latias1290 (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

My best guess is that the Main:Candy redirect is cached and still points to v0.34:Adamantine. Our new policy is to keep redirects in versioned namespaces, so feel free to tag any broken redirects (in the main namespace) that you find with {{bad redirect}} and I'll delete them. —Lethosor (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I just saw a redlink on the exploratory tunnels page(redlink to DF2014:Break) and went to create it, when I discovered that the pages for Break existed for 23a and 40d, but not for 34.11 and 40.x. I went to check those to import content, and they turned out to be redirects. So I just redirected DF2014:Break to DF2014:On break and when I went to create additional redirects in the mainspace, I found that main:Break redirects to main:On break which redirects to cv:On break. But, again, it ultimately did not redirect to cv:On break but to v0.34:Break. I think that if it is indeed a cache problem we should rebuild redirect caches. Latias1290 (talk)
PS: Or just batch-delete all of this kind of redirects. Latias1290 (talk)
I don't like "bumping" this message like this, but since it's rather annoying, and ten days have been since I told you, almost all of these redirects are broken. Take a look at main:Aluminium for example, it goes to its 34.11 page. I think that it goes like this; when a page in the mainspace redirects to another page in the mainspace, which in turn goes to a cv space page, it goes to 0.34 instead of the current version. Going to the main>cv redirect initially does not cause this glitch. Latias1290 (talk)
It would be helpful if you could add {{bad redirect}} to those pages (preferably before the "#REDIRECT" line) so I can delete them. I'm not sure what's causing the problem, but I'll see if I can override broken redirects with the AutoRedirect extension as well. —Lethosor (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Migrated citations[edit]

As seen on DF2014:Dragonfire, migrated citations can become confused, pointing to non-existent pages. I'm not sure how to fix it, but in general citations shouldn't automatically change what they are pointing at.--Loci (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

{{ArticleVersion}} bug[edit]

I just found another very strange bug regarding the articleversion template. The more research I did on it, the weirder it got. The bug is that when you are not logged in, and you visit a non-DF2014 page with an av template, the latest version shows as v0.40.16 instead of v0.40.18. Latias1290 (talk) PS: This bug does not replicate when you are logged in. Latias1290 (talk)

This is because pages are cached for logged-out users. You can refresh individual pages by adding "?action=purge" to the end of the URL (or possibly by null-editing them). It appears to occur in DF2014 pages as well - DF2014:Hemp, for example. —Lethosor (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Lost password request[edit]

I've forgotten my password. User: Bumber

You don't seem to have an email address associated with your account. I sent a message to Bumber on the forums, assuming that's you. —Lethosor (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)



Thank you for the correction. I felt I might be doing it wrong but couldn't find an example of it done right to copy. Now I know. :) Volatar (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

v0.42.05 raws update[edit]

Just a friendly reminder that the wiki raws need updated to pick up the new critters in v0.42.05. It would also be nice if your bot could auto-create the new creature pages so we don't end up with back bear man and the like.--Loci (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Quietust updated the extension, but I'm having trouble deploying the changes for some reason (which Emily can hopefully figure out). I don't know if I'll have enough time this/next week to write a script to create the new creature pages - if not, Quietust might have something still laying around from 0.34/0.40. —Lethosor (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Page move reminder[edit]

DF2014:Box to DF2014:Container please. Brightgalrs (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. It took me a second to figure out what the issue was - I'm surprised Mediawiki wouldn't let you move a page over another one that was just a redirect. —Lethosor (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Brightgalrs (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

v0.43.05 raws update[edit]

Just a friendly reminder that the wiki raws need updated to pick up the changes through v0.43.05.--Loci (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. —Lethosor (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Multiple redirects leads to incorrect namespace[edit]

Discussion here: Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki_talk:Centralized_Discussion#Solution_for_this Brightgalrs (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


We had an attack on August 3rd. Talk:Main Page (fix plz) ‎needs moved back to Talk:Main Page, and the rest of the vandal's handiwork can just be deleted. I can't think of any legitimate reason a user would need to move Talk:Main Page, so it should probably be move-locked to prevent future hijacks.--Loci (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It should be cleaned up now. Sorry for the delay there. Main Page was already move-protected, but apparently that didn't apply to the talk page, so both should be move-protected now too. —Lethosor (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I need a password reset[edit]

I just logged in, saw the post about passwords needing to be changed. (Feeling all smart since I just setup a password manager) I updated my password, only to realize I didn't save the new password correctly in the manager. I tried to reset it but the wiki had a note saying to contact you since it can't do outbound email right now.

My user name is Frobnic8.

My most notable contribution here are the PDF versions of the old Bronzemurder illustration by Tim Denee: Bronzemurder

The files are still hosted at my website. To prove it's me, I've also left you a note at

Sorry for the hassle, but if you could set me a temporary password or send me a link to a password reset to the associated email address for the account, that'd be awesome.


-- 15:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Done —Lethosor (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --Frobnic8 (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Password reset[edit]

I could have sworn I did this already, but now there's no sign of my edit here. Dunno what happened to it. Can I please get a password reset for user Urist McDorf. I believe the email info associated is still good (j*y@y*m). Thanks. 06:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Totally failed to make an account[edit]

Really think I did everything right.

The Captcha app you are using says it "shutdown" on 3-31-2018 so i'm wondering if that's the issue. unsigned comment by

Yeah, we know about it. Emi and Briess are working on some upgrades, and we'll try to upgrade the captcha once it's done. In the meantime, you can PM me on the forums (or email me at and I think I can set up an account for you. —Lethosor (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Chemist Page Quality Rating[edit]

The quality rating of the chemist page is listed as *Superior*, despite being a stub. I can't even decrease the quality down to +Fine+ using the rating script. I added the memory attribute as stated by Toady's recent FotF reply, and I'll insert the relevant topics for the skill, but there's probably a lot more work to be done. --Bumber (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The "override" link worked for me. You have to click on the rating at the top that you want to select, then submit. The calculated score is unreliable, to say the least. —Lethosor (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out how the override worked and just assumed it was an admin thing. Didn't realize you had to click one of the quality options at the top. —Bumber (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

[Proposition] - Wiki preview popups[edit]

Hi there.

I've read quite a bit of wikipedia these last few days (the real wikipedia website), and I've come to use their preview feature quite a few times. In case you don't know, the preview is a little JS pop-up that shows an image and some text when you hover a link. So, you get a rough idea of what the thing is, and you don't have to load the full page (you can still if you click the link).

This feature is not in DF wiki, and I was thinking maybe it could be, as it greatly increase readability (since you don't have to open a new page, read the first few lines, go back, and waste time figuring out where you were; for every topic you're unaware of).

I'm not sure whether I should ask you, or Briess or anyone, but since you've made quite some wiki Extensions, I'll ask anyway.

So, do you think it could be a viable idea to turn this feature on ?

Here's a mediawiki tutorial on how to set this up, just in case : [1]

Cheers ! =D - Spriggans Aug, 17 2018

It does sound useful, but it claims to require MediaWiki 1.25+, so it'll probably have to wait until we finish upgrading. There are instructions for 1.24 or earlier in the article, though - I'm not sure how far back "or earlier" includes. The two extensions it depends on, TextExtracts and PageImages, require 1.23+ and 1.25+ respectively, so it's unlikely that it'll work on our current (pre-upgrade) setup.
(I am a good person to ask, by the way, and ~~~~ is probably a more convenient way to sign comments.) —Lethosor (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Aesthetically Pleasing Things[edit]

I know I posted this before but... do I have your permission to spice up some of the templates of tables? I could make some look better and "cleaner" than they do now. Also, are there any plans to change the default look of the wiki? I don't mean this in a nasty way, white with black text is pretty... generic. - Zippy (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


It looks like your bot is automatically welcoming editors. Unfortunately, due to the nature of rotating IP addresses, it appears your bot has welcomed one anonymous user 7 times in the last 5 days. Perhaps it would be best to restrict auto-welcoming to non-IP users?--Loci (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the AutoWelcomeUser extension (just set up to attribute edits to my bot). I definitely agree that it should be changed, and I'll look into it. Fun fact: this was enabled on the old wiki, but I had written it for a slightly newer Mediawiki version, so I had forgotten about it since it didn't actually work until we upgraded. —Lethosor (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I think this is fixed now. —Lethosor (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

On "Acceptable" Commas[edit]

Regarding this edit:

Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style (referenced as Rule S): "Where more than one style is acceptable under MoS, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason."

So, while that comma is indeed "acceptable" (or optional), editing to add that optional comma is not. I intentionally did not put a comma there when I added that sentence, and I believe my punctuational preference is at least as valid as ‎Silverwing235's.--Loci (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that comma is optional, but I didn't realize you had added that sentence (I thought it was part of the original quote from Toady before your changes, so I was mistakenly applying rule S there as well). Apologies, and it's your call as to what to do there. —Lethosor (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Embark points[edit]

There's no page explaining embark points in-depth; can I make such a page? Or at least add it to the embark page? -- Zippy (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd add it to the embark page since I'm not sure it warrants a separate page unless it's a lot of detail (i.e. more than the current embark page). —Lethosor (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
With what I have planned, there's a ton of things I can go over which can fill a page. I can make a "workbench"/fake page and you can tell me if it's worthy or not. Also, is it possible to put things in "collapsable/expandable" tables to not badly stretch out pages? -- Zippy (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, one more thing. You know the "Urist likes [something] for their [something]."? Are these made up on the spot or is that info taken directly from somewhere? -- Zippy (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much detail you can go into about just embark points, but sure, feel free to make a test page if you like and I can provide some input. I wouldn't put things in collapsible tables just because of page length, because pretty much no other page does that (except for some things that aren't really part of the content of a page, like nav boxes and raws). If you're referring to things like "Urist likes [creature]" from pages like DF2014:Cat, those are generated from the raws. I'm not sure if that appears on any other types of pages. —Lethosor (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Creature font[edit]

Are you alright if I change the font of the letters in the creature list? Sorry to say this but that font is kinda ugly. -- Zippy (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you talking about DF2014:Creature or something else? I personally think that page looks fine, but what does it look like on your end? It might be some cross-browser issue that we can try to sort out. —Lethosor (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes I do mean that DF2014:Creature page. The font of the letters that resemble the creatures are this ugly "Times New Roman"-esque font that looks like an eyesore to me. It could be a much smoother looking font. -- Zippy (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I noticed the font looks ugly on Firefox and Edge but not in the Tor Browser. So yeah, there's a weird browser thing going on and I don't know how to fix things for specific browsers on wiki's... -- Zippy (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm guessing you don't have the "Century" font installed, or accessible in those browsers for some reason. For reference, here is what it looks like for me, definitely not Times. I'll see if it can be standardized. Does c look ok to you? —Lethosor (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
At some point in the possibly-recent past, those letters looked the same for me as it did you, but one day it just changed to the uglier font. Also, it's impossible to use the "Upload newer version of this file" function, as that always gives weird errors: Could not read or write file "mwstore://local-backend/local-public/6/6c/Biome_evil.png" due to insufficient permissions or missing directories/containers. I'm assuming I don't have access to do that? -- Zippy (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I figured out the setting that controlled the font, it's the "Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of your selections above" choice, but turning this option off can spoil the fonts everywhere else on other sites. There's something about (my) Firefox that's not recognizing the Century font, even though I have it. -- Zippy (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, not sure it's worth working around browser settings. Does the c from above look ok to you or the same as the one on the creatures page? Also, that error is definitely not intentional; I'll look into it. —Lethosor (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
The C there looks alright. Creature tile lists on other pages look fine as it's using the "Tile" template, so maybe something's wrong with the template being used in the creature page. -- Zippy (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a custom template being used for those tables that specifies the font itself. I changed the font to fall back to the ones that {{Tile}} uses. Does it look ok now? —Lethosor (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It does not. But when I use a different computer, it's fine there (still on Firefox). Yeah, I can't figure this out. -- Zippy (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've cleared the cache on the server side (I don't remember if I did that before). If that still doesn't help, maybe clearing your browser's cache would help? —Lethosor (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I cleared 1GB worth of data, but that didn't fix the issue? -- Zippy (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


Here comes Supernerd... the coolest and greatest editor ever on Dwarf Fortress Wiki. --Supernerd (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to translate the Wiki into Spanish[edit]

Good I am an expert player in the game and I would like to translate the wiki to help the Spanish community in this great game. Should I translate it as I could?. Here's my email for the answer:

Just signal boosting on someone else's behalf...[edit]

...apparently a researcher with research on books got themselves locked out of the lab. Any support for this? --Silverwing235 (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Minor server-side issues...[edit]

1. Broken(404) HTML links here.

2. Creature variation needs to be added here. --Silverwing235 (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

These aren't server-side issues - they can be fixed by editing the pages. In the first case, the forums moved from to (I'm not sure when that happened, or if there used to be a redirect, but I would recommend {{cite forum}} to make them future-proof). The second issue you pointed out happens when creature variations don't follow the typical naming pattern, but you can override the variations that the templates display. See blue jay, bluejay man, and giant bluejay for examples, and feel free to let me know if you have any questions about those templates. —Lethosor (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Update: looks like there's also {{forum link}} if you prefer to keep the text that the links currently use (for #1). —Lethosor (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

can't login... user:garrieirons[edit]

yeah I tried all the things and posted on the forum.

any advice on how to get a password reset?

Sorry if you're not an admin.

Cheers, Garrie

Symptom: When I click the reset password link, and enter my user name (GarrieIrons) it tells me: A password reset email has already been sent, within the last 24 hours. To prevent abuse, only one password reset email will be sent per 24 hours.

Cheers again. G

Ok, so it sounds like you already requested a password reset - did you get an email? It should have come from (make sure it didn't get sent to your spam folder). If you don't have access to the email address you registered with anymore, I can try to reset it some other way. Also, where did you post on the forums? I didn't see anything from you on the wiki board. —Lethosor (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, every password reset has resulted in the message above, but, no email. Can you tell me is it going to a hotmail, or a gmail address? If not, I'm stumped and I'll start a different account?
Also...ok I looked at threads I guess. I coulda sworn at some time in the past I asked about this on the forum but I'm not finding it (only the thread I thought I responded to).
OK I found a PM thread on the forum, from ages ago, referring me to you...but I'd never followed up... 🤦‍♂️
Looks like your username at - do you still have access to that? I just sent you a test email from the wiki, so let me know if that goes through. —Lethosor (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Weirdness ensues...[edit]

...Alright, maybe not, but then again... this page is fine in Search, but spews redlinkery when linked to as if Ebola-infected - very puzzling. ---Silverwing235 (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC) EDIT: And the mystery deepens, because apparently one has to be very specific about phrasing...downright incantational, order to get a clear result with this.

If you're in a versioned namespace (like DF2014), links will be within that namespace by default; otherwise, they will use the main namespace. Looks like a redirect was created in this case and both of those links seem to work now. —Lethosor (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Obok Meatgod[edit]

Hey Lethesor, thanks for all the work you do for DFhack. I have a favour to ask. I was using the "random page" feature and I stumbled upon this article. The article is about an adventure mode game from the Bay12 forums where some dude modded genitals into his game so he could [do some really vile stuff]. I don't mean to bug you about it, but I'm getting an internal error when I try to start a talk page on the article. Basically, can you delete this article? I'm all for some good shock humour, and I know DF stories can get pretty brutal, but this doesn't really seem like it's supposed to be funny. The forum page it links back to just reads like some edge-lord's fanfic power fantasy. Maybe I'm mistaken and this is relevant to DF, but if not, mind doing me a favour and just purging it from the wiki? -- 00:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Jon

I did a bit of research - given that it was deleted from Bay12 and DFFD, I think I'll follow suit and delete it from here too. (It's not permanent here - an admin could always get it back.) Thanks for bringing it to my attention. —Lethosor (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Lethesor! 17:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Jon

Regarding a certain subst tag:[edit]

(Stop me if I miss anything, please.)

IIRC, its a since-deprecated holdover of some kind of Wikipedian affiliation, that is pretty much purge-on-sight when found in art licensing around here. The important question is, how to proceed, if at all, when evidence is discovered of apparent holdouts of that sort further afield, outside the verified-for-deletion parameters? Silverwing235 (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest MediaWiki's documentation for information on what subst does. It's not specifically something that came from Wikipedia. One caveat is that if the template being substituted didn't exist when the page was saved, the subst: won't get replaced until you save the page again. However, in this case, it looks like I removed the subst: part from where these templates were being used, so yes, on image pages, removing the "subst: prefix is fine.
From the search results you linked, a lot of the subst occurrences appear to be in HTML comments, so they won't get substituted when the page is saved. They also won't be displayed to readers, though. I suspect that's either stuff left over from version migrations or moving things to templates. I wouldn't put too much effort into dealing with those, unless you find something on a current-version page (in which case I'd say move things out of the comment if they're relevant or delete them if they're obsolete). —Lethosor (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Lost password/email request[edit]

User: DDR I've lost the email and password I apparently used to set up my account on this wiki, over a decade ago.

I'm DDR on the forum, which I still have my login for… and the mantis bugtracker, and DFFD.

Thank you. Sorry for the trouble.

Sent a PM on the forums. —Lethosor (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Further comment[edit]

It's hard to continue to assume good faith in this case, when the user in question tries to bury discussion of their behavior. Obviously that tactic isn't very effective, but it's a far cry from the openness and transparency required for the wiki to function as a collaborative project. Anyway, I firmly believe in WP:AAGF as a part of WP:CIVIL, which is part of the point I tried to raise in that discussion (which was then erased). I'm linking these policies not because I think you're unfamiliar, but because I want to be clear on where I'm coming from. οɼѕаk 17:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't have many of our own policies on things like this, but I'll take a look at the ones you linked since I'm not very familiar with them, particularly AAGF. It occurs to me that some of my comments may have come across as not following AAGF, and I apologize for that - I was (and still am) trying to follow AGF on my end, but it is challenging in this situation. I didn't intend to imply that you were not.
As for the talk page edits, WP:OWNTALK seems to match my thoughts on the matter. Silverwing235's comment appears (to me) to be a more explicit acknowledgement of the criticism you raised, rather than an implicit acknowledgement by just removing your comment. I think your criticism was understood, in any case.
(I do plan to respond to the AIV discussion, but am not sure how best to do that yet. In any case, I appreciate your concern for the wiki, and would like to find a solution that's acceptable to everyone involved.) —Lethosor (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
A few phrases in my comments below are bolded—it's really just to emphasize structure, not to alter tone.οɼѕаk 22:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I actually wasn't talking about you when I referred to AAGF and my comment (and its erasure). I meant that Silverwing235 has—on this occasion and others—assumed that other editors are not engaging in good faith, and also that they are not assuming good faith (as when Silverwing235 referred to me as a “saboteur”); and that Silverwing235's own actions (immediate removal of comments in ongoing discussions from their talk page—I believe this argument stands irrespective of OWNTALK) make it hard to continue to assume good faith on their part.
And, related to that: I have a hard time parsing many of Silverwing235's comments throughout. They're often vague and overcooked to the point of obscurity. There's very little there—even after the comment removal—that acknowledges the existence of a dispute over either past or ongoing behaviors, let alone the need for specific behaviors to change (let alone why those behaviors are wrong, or how those behaviors should change). Where there is, there is also language implying that the issue is really with other editors and their disagreement—as if other editors are wrong to raise an issue in the first place. But as Silverwing235's edit summaries (and, incidentally, User+Talk comments) have repeatedly implied, they edit things to suit their personal tastes, not necessarily to correct mistakes (which they sometimes assert they are doing, but as has been seen, they frequently are not).
Another example of the general problem raised in AIV popped up yesterday: while reviewing a substantial IP edit (which, to me, looked good), I noticed that the edits immediately prior to it were Silverwing235's, made in late 2019 (soon after their dispute with Loci had ended in Loci's departure). And I quickly saw that this edit was again, apparently, a “stylistic” change which Silverwing235 may honestly have believed necessary (for their own reasons), but which was actually erroneous. This sort of edit is partially why I cited IDHT and CIR (which, together, are relevant here, I think) in the AIV discussion.
And although I can understand why Voliol might have gotten the contrary impression in the AIV discussion, I'm not advocating a high bar for entry, here. I'm saying that if an editor has been told to avoid imposing their own judgment where they cannot articulate a rationale (such as when deciding whether commas need to be inserted before every occurence of “if” and “as”; whether a pair of parentheses should be replaced with an approximation to some other punctuation; whether “he” and “she” should be replaced, or eliminated, or simply left alone where they already occur; or whether miscellaneous comments oblique to the rest of an article are necessary or even appropriate), as Silverwing235 has, but they continue to do so, then that presents a problem related to both judgment and behavior (hence IDHT, tangential to CIR).
Now, I hate to have these two discussions at the same time, but at this point, it would be counterproductive to fork it, so: I see that Silverwing235 has actually objected to the whole AIV discussion on the basis that they do not believe DE constitutes vandalism (which obviously it does not, in general). But as I acknowledged in my first contribution there, the prior AIV thread seemed to be the most appropriate place to make my comments due to the discussion which showed this user has faced similar criticism before. And, as I mentioned both above and in AIV, there is a pattern of civility issues which existed at least as early as that AIV thread. In particular, their responses to criticism from Loci and in this case have been a mixture of aggressive and passive-aggressive. And again, it's hard to assume good faith when critical comments are removed immediately and without either a discussion or a clear and substantial acknowledgment that those comments referred to an ongoing pattern of behavior that must change (change what, change how, change why). I.e., yes, users control their own talk pages, but that doesn't prevent their changes from being interpreted one way or another; and in this case, it's hard not to interpret Silverwing235's changes as avoiding the issue. I understand their stated desire to avoid content which affects them emotionally, but this is about conduct as much as it is about content.
The only reason I've raised this is to avoid continued unease. I don't like writing about disputes, and I prefer to think of the wiki community as inclusive rather than exclusive. But again, it's harder to want to edit if this behavior—not just from Silverwing235, but from any editor—is unconstrained except by laborious trial and error (a huge time and energy suck, when you consider putting up with breaks from CIVIL). And I'm not alone in this (which I mention only to emphasize that this is not personal—and I'm not invoking a silent majority, whether one exists or not, and ultimately, it's not just about this one editor).
In any case, I appreciate your participation in the matter and in conveying suggestions about specific edits to this editor.
οɼѕаk 22:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Point one: Yes, the notion about 'a more explicit acknowledgement' was accurate. A personal policy that I came up with re my talk page: 'If it would cause me significant emotional distress, either immediately or at any time during a review of the content, (aka: 'Nope, not having that around, causing trouble') it gets removed. If, IMHO, the removal itself would raise questions (as it appears to have done in this case) it will at least get a hopefully emotionally-neutral summary and acknowledgement of the thing that caused my upset to begin with. Silverwing235 (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


Hello. I noticed in the recent changes you reverted the edit on Textile Industry, and I realized that my edit on Expedition Leader falls in the same category. The problem is that, as long as they exist, those pages will always appear on autocomplete, and they won't redirect properly if left as is. So I propose that until a decision is made for them to be deleted, that they be allowed to redirect properly to not confuse people who find them through autocomplete, like me. --Lurker (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The underlying cause here is a Mediawiki bug with double redirects, discussed in detail at DF:REDIR's talk page. Making any sort of edit to the first page in the chain will fix broken double redirects, so even though I reverted your edit, Textile Industry redirects correctly now, even from the search bar.
The other important point is that you need to use "cv" for the namespace in redirect targets - hardcoding a specific version like "DF2014" will have the wrong behavior when we add a new namespace. In this case, I have deleted the page you edited, since Expedition leader (lowercase L) already exists and turns up in search results (and follows DF:Rule N). —Lethosor (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Very well. Thank you for your time. --Lurker (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I should clarify: you're welcome to fix redirects like this that you notice, as long as you use "cv" (and there's a reminder that appears above the edit box when editing pages in the main namespace, in case that's useful). If you notice redirects whose only difference is capitalization, feel free to tag them for deletion with {{delete}} and I can handle them. It occurs to me now that Textile Industry is another example of that. —Lethosor (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Drastic error in judgement ensues..[edit]

Derped by starting this up, in a way it turned out I rather shouldn't have - mind cleaning up? Thanks. Silverwing235 (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure - what are you asking me to do? I'm hesitant to remove a discussion entirely, but if it's redundant to one on another talk page, I suppose I could archive it. —Lethosor (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

...Yeah, archival was what I meant - one is always slightly frazzled when caught prepping to sign off for the night. Silverwing235 (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


Not that I want more clutter, but what do you think about putting a Special:Random/cv link in the sidebar? οɼѕаk 16:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you always want that there, or just in the current version's namespace? For reference, there are custom links added in some namespaces already, like Special:Random/Masterwork on Masterwork:Orc, so a fourth "random" link on that sidebar could add some clutter. I would lean towards doing this just for versioned pages, but I'm not sure what you think is best. —Lethosor (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know. As I said, I'm also not interested in more clutter. Personally, I've frequently been using a bookmark to random/cv just to get a sense of what's on the wiki these days (since I've been “away”/uninvolved). Obviously I don't think that's a good reason for the wiki to change anything, though.
When I wrote this on your talk page, my thinking was this: if I'm a new player (or a former one), and I want to know what there is in this huge game that I don't already know everything about, maybe I'll go to the wiki and click "random page" a few times to satisfy my curiosity. I can always click it again if I end up on something in the Masterwork: namespace (or, if it's in v0.31 etc., just click the link in the Av template). But I'll have to do that most of the time, since articles in non-cv namespaces outnumber articles in cv. (Right?)
I.e., I think my suggestion is only really relevant (at least from the point-of-view of my reasons for bringing it up at all) on the landing/main page. I'm not attached to it enough to say it should go everywhere. If there's no convenient way to exclude it from pages where there are already namespace-specific random links in the sidebar, then I'm not about to suggest anyone should spend their limited time on the planet worrying about it after all.
οɼѕаk 18:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
This Mediawiki setting came to mind as a potential easy way to exclude certain namespaces from Special:Random by default, but unfortunately it also affects some other special pages that we may not want to change. I could probably update our custom sidebar logic (which I believe is in mw:common.js) but it likely won't be a high priority. —Lethosor (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Handling "!!science!!"-style additions[edit]

Sorry to repeatedly bring things to you—I don't really know who does what here now, or if there's a discussion board somewhere this belongs on (other than the talk page for just one of the related articles). Could you take a look at this discussion?
As I mention there, there are a couple of other edits by that IP user at around the same time that (at a glance) look like they are probably similar. In the case of stress, at least, the content of the article prior to the additions is now buried under a single user's experimental results for a game version one year out-of-date. οɼѕаk 18:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I left a comment on the article's talk page. The timing seemed to line up with [2] closely enough that I also left a comment there. —Lethosor (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

A minor but rather elegant Gordian Knot of an error...[edit]

Is there any chance of fixing an accidental red link in the diff explanation, created when attempting to directly cite the reason's source, of an anonymous comment on the article's talk page, by citing the page instead of (obviously) the comment? Silverwing235 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries can't be changed, unfortunately. In case you were unaware, they can be previewed when you click the "Show preview" button (alternatively, just mentioning "the talk page" for something like this would be fine too). —Lethosor (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)