User talk:Rukhabot/2007

= November 2007 =

What on earth are you doing this wrong for? --Connel MacKenzie 22:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * … ? —Ruakh TALK 22:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That template should not be preceded by a bullet. If you've mangled the template incorrectly, that needs to be undone. Where did you discuss this? --Connel MacKenzie 22:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * *sigh* I don't see how you can participate in one relevant discussion and link to another, and then ask where something was discussed. But, since you ask: WT:BP, Template talk:pedialite —Ruakh TALK 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're doing precisely what, then? Taking one person's comments about a template possibly being deprecated, and re-interpreting that to mean that the template should instead be broken?  I don't quite follow that "logic."  --Connel MacKenzie 22:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * *sigh* No, I'm implementing a change that I advertised at the beer parlour and that no one objected to at the time. —Ruakh TALK 22:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No one objected to? You had lots of opposition comments, pretty much in every direction.  Your assumption that because no one commented on one sub-aspect (of the whole mess) in two days, somehow indicates a lack of opposition, is a very bad assumption.  And in this case, incorrect.  --Connel MacKenzie 23:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am distressed at your cavalier attitude about this. You mentioned a slew of proposed changes.  Every comment you got was basically negative.  So you sifted out one minor aspect that hadn't been discussed.  Instead of asking if even that one (presumably it seemed minor, to you?) change had consensus, you plowed ahead?  That sort of irresponsible behavior disparages all bot operators.  I think you should undo your changes and appologize to all bot operators on WT:GP (where it should have been discussed in the first place, before being announced on WT:BP.)  --Connel MacKenzie 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC) (edit) 23:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ruakh: I have no idea whatsoever where Connel is coming from here. "every comment was basically negative"? Huh? there were only a few comments, all positive except for DmcDevit wondering if it was worthwhile going through and changing every article/use if it was going to be deprecated. Which is of course pretty trivial. He isn't making any sense at all that I can see. (And he argues vehemently and consistently that # should always be in the wikitext so it is visible to parsing, and makes the reverse argument here? Huh?) I don't get it at all. Sorry. Robert Ullmann 16:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)