User talk:Dgbrt

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

See the history for more:


[edit] Comics featuring real people

Hi Dgbrt. I saw that you deleted the Category: Comics featuring real people from 1536: The Martian. I may tend to agree with this decision. But the "real" people in that comic was the mentioning of Matt Damon, which was why I did not delete it myself. I just made a comment about this here on the Talk: Comics featuring real people page because I think people use this category in two ways. I'm not sure which way would be more correct. Shall the real-person be part of the comic or is it enough just for hem to be mentioned in the comic. In other featured people categories it is enough for them to be mentioned. See for instance Category:Comics featuring James. Maybe that category is also wrongly used/named though? It could have been called something other than featured. (Mentioning James). I'm open for both interpretations of these categories... --Kynde (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Subsections

Let's go to the talk page, then. Xhfz (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that you were the one who began destroying the sections. That's violent, too. Xhfz (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just working on a proper layout. Pro-Tip: Use ctrl+f ;) . And all was beginning when you were destroying my layout at the transcript. I don't agree on that. --Dgbrt (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] File:land mammals.png

I would like to use it for my blog. What are the terms of use? -- Maria 21:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Making discussion pages

I've recently restricted page creation for new users, which means that sometimes new users can't make a discussion page. Could you make the bot make empty talk pages for new comics as well? I'll push something to your git repo soon, right after I'm done with finals. Davidy²²[talk] 08:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Davidy22, I'm sorry but mail notification didn't work. Please give me a reply here so I can see if the notification works. And tell me, if there is still a need to change the BOT. If so, it will be available by Friday. But before that I will create a comic named "dgbrtTEST" and ask you to delete it.--Dgbrt (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Alright, will do. The changes are probably still preferred. Davidy²²[talk] 19:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, mail notification is working again. I will do the changes and let you when I've done the test.--Dgbrt (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The update is done. I've done some local tests and I'm happy with this. At github you can see the current script with some more changes I've done in the past.--Dgbrt (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Should it already work on todays April Fools' Day comic? (I'm really looking forward to that). It will be great when it does, cool that you take the time to work on the update. I have spotted a couple of times recently where someone has either waited in anticipation for the discussion page to be created, have used the explanation to post what should have been a comment and even once had a user writing on my talk page to get me to create the page for them to use. --Kynde (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

While I'm still waiting for the next update to give me a prove to my successful update on talk-pages, Randall gave us this April fool:

The xkcd April 1st comic is currently experiencing technical difficulties.
Status update: Please stand by.
Status update: This is fine. Everything is fine.
Status update: Everything is on fire.
Status update: Searching for calendar systems in which Saturday is April 1st.

It seems Randall is on serious problems. But I'm happy about this honest message.--Dgbrt (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Only for my own documentation, the current schedule is this Sunday night. My BOT keeps an eye on this. Randall says:

The Friday xkcd comic is currently experiencing technical difficulties [Editor's note: Everything is on fire] and has been delayed until Sunday night.

But since this will not be a standard comic I don't know what my BOT will do.--Dgbrt (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dgbrt, yes that was some kind of April Fool's joke he came up with there. But what about your bot afterwards. Seems like Davidy22 created the page for todays comic manually? Has you changes broken the bot? Kynde (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Transcript and other features

Hi Dgbrt - hope this is not going to be TL;DR? :-)

I take further discussion on our part regarding transcript to your page, because I think we have written enough on my talk page on transcripts. If any one else will continue that discussion there that's fine, it would also be nice to have input from someone else than just us two and Zetfr.

I can see that you have been quite active this year, as compared to the last half year before (and also with a long break before that?) Will you have time to be more active from now in general? Welcome back anyway ;-) Just took a month and a half of complete break from Explain xkcd my self up until just after this New Year.

I believe we got of on a wrong foot, both long ago I think, and also just now when I was annoyed at you for writing on my page regarding transcripts (and the TL;DR comment). So I'm really happy how our transcript discussion went in the end, and thanks for the last comment from earlier today. And as I said there I did not read all you refereed to before answering the first couple of times, sorry again for that.

Nice to hear from Zetfr as one who really uses the transcripts. When I first found this page it took me some time to appreciate the importance of the transcript.

I know you have much more knowledge about what's possible with computers as your DgbrtBOT, which is great, shows me. (And thanks for adding creation of discussion pages to it). Also I like the way you made the Explain mentioned by Randall category. That is great. Cool that I made that happen by finding it for Payloads.

Maybe we should try to write a dedicated page on what the transcript on Explain xkcd is for; who may use it for reading comics; who for understanding other parts of the comics; and why they make sense regarding searching for specific things, not necessarily mentioned in text or our explanation. Something that could be referred to when people ask about transcripts, and also to explain why we should not just use a transcription of Randall's transcript for several reasons (naming of characters for instance) and because all text should be included for normal length comics, and at least all text in the extended transcript for huge comics (this was also what Zetfr suggested). Those type of full transcripts could also be mentioned there. As well as link to explanation of Randall's own transcripts.

I have recently added lots of info on xkcd's design on the xkcd page. But it became cluttered (TL'DR :-) so I have created two new pages from that info here: Design of and also the Transcript on xkcd I just mentioned above. The page for "our" transcripts could thus need one called Transcript on Explain xkcd like I also mentioned above.

I think keeping track of history and deviations on the main page etc. is important and fun for some people. But of course it should be hidden away for those that search for it, and not in "your" face, when all you wish to know is what chess win-los notation is.

Cheers --Kynde (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

oohh, start reading... (check timestamp)--Dgbrt (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
....ready. Answering all the questions will take a little bit longer. (check timestamp) --Dgbrt (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

For further discussions I will divide my answers to several headlines.

[edit] dgbrt stopped posting here and only continued supporting dgbrtDOT for a proper page generation and all what belongs to this issue

I was often annoyed when I mentioned that texting should be short as possible. Huhh, I was censoring content... Everybody can say everything... So I felt like what Randall mentioned in many comics (youtube comments, you name it...). Even many explains are TL;DR and sometimes really OFF TOPIC. And most of that content belongs to only one user: Kynde. Sorry, but now I figured out your edits did not annoy only me. This just an honest answer from me. More technical discussions shouldn't run this way; I will open separate subsections for those. --Dgbrt (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Just like to add that I'm not the only one who writes more than other people think is needed... See the latest comic and it's discussion. I have only added the categories for that one... I was thinking the same as those two last comments, but after reading your answers here I did not wish to join in that conversation. :/ --Kynde (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Transcripts

A transcript is perfect when someone who doesn't know the image is reading this feels the same as someone who simply looks at that picture. Is that possible? NO! Look at a picture showing some clouds... What do you see? The same as me? NO! Can you describe all the differences we both see? NO! So, not the cloud shape is important, it's just a cloud. If there is some importance on the shape it goes into the explain section. (I have no specific comic in mind on this). --Dgbrt (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] xkcd page and more

I mentioned this to Davidy22. You should talk to others here before editing those essential pages! If I've seen this by the time you edited this a simple UNDO would have been my reaction. --Dgbrt (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Keep it compact

Did I miss some essentials?--Dgbrt (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dgbrt. I have read your comments. Thanks for the input. I do not have anything specific to say at the time. Sorry you feel like this though.
I have one question not related to the above. What happened to your new category? I can see Davidy deleted it. Sorry about that. I liked the idea. I did not have time to look at your other finds. If it is not a big trouble for you I would appreciate if you wrote the numbers on the comic here (no links needed). --Kynde (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kynde, the reason given by Davidy22 was: "Mangled category name, and we don't make categories based on things that aren't in the comics." I wonder why the second criteria doesn't fit to the three LiveJournal categories. And I'm sure there are more "categories based on things that aren't in the comics". Nevertheless the comics are:
--Dgbrt (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Dgbrt. I think his first point is valid, but that would have been easy to fix. Maybe he just did not care to do so? I really think it is relevant, and considers posting these in the trivia of the first and linking from the others to that trivia. And on Randall's page we could make a note saying that although he has nothing personal to do with this site, he has acknowledged its existence at least seven times. Although it has not been out in the open but only behind the scenes for those who really study the comic. --Kynde (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
PS Just posted a comment to your thread on Davidy's page. --Kynde (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] #1811

Hi Dgbrt,

I was editing the page and had different views in the READ and EDIT - in the EDIT, everything was on the right place, but the page didn't fit. I suppose there were some editing overlaps? I'll try again tomorow. gute Nacht :-) --LaVe (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and good night... And stay tuned, my poor Nerd Sniping victim.--Dgbrt (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Uploading corrected comic image files


Thanks for helping out a newbie like me. Earlier today I attempted to upload an updated image for #1796. It didn't go as smoothly as I expected, so I hope you can tell me if I was doing it correctly.

First, I downloaded the updated png file from xkcd to my system. Then I clicked on the on-screen image to access the "File:" page, then clicked on the upload link to replace the png file with the one I downloaded. After selecting the image file and adding a short description, I uploaded the new image file. The File: page showed the new image revision in the history table, but opening the new image file from there just returned the old version, even despite me refreshing the image in my browser. Thinking I had accidentally uploaded the old version, I reverted my update. I then looked at the downloaded image file, which was the new version.

At this point, I was confused - maybe using my tablet to upload the image from my server resulted in the tablet uploading a local temp copy instead of the remote server file. So I repeated the upload from my laptop, hoping it would work correctly this time, but got the same result.

I then left a note on the Talk page for 1796 to find out if I was making some rookie mistake and left it for the time being. Now, I see that the corrected image file is being displayed. I don't know if an admin corrected the problem behind the scenes or if this is a case of caching preventing the updated image from being used until some expiration period had passed. Do you have any insight for me? --Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late. My answer is here: Ianrbibtitlht talk --Dgbrt (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
So it was a cache problem! Maybe the upload screen could contain a note to that effect so new uploaders like myself know to give it time. --Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Nice idea but it's not easy to change a standard template from MediaWiki. And I don't have access to this files on the server.--Dgbrt (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense! It's trivial to edit a standard template in MediaWiki. Just edit MediaWiki:Uploadtext. You can find the appropriate page to edit by going through Note that MediaWiki pages can only be edited by sysops/bureaucrats, but they don't need login access to the server to do it. JohnHawkinson (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
As I've told, I don't have access to this. I suggest you add an admin request here: Community portal.--Dgbrt (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
If you have a concrete suggestion for the note, please tell, I might add it then. --SlashMe (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks SlashMe for your support. The known problem is that an update for a picture will result in the same URL which is already in the cache at the server cloud. Only when that cache is expired (maybe hours - I don't know) the update will be visible. So the text could be like this:
  • INFORMATION FOR UPDATES: Please be patient after uploading an update. When your upload is shown in the history everything is fine but the former version is still stored in the cache and shown to everybody for a while.
Any better idea?--Dgbrt (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Editing others' markup

Dgbrt: Please stop editing other people's markup and removing it, as you have so far done twice to me in Talk:1850:_Air_Force_Museum. If you think there's something wrong with boxes, perhaps that is an OK opinion to have, but please state it. Don't make unilateral changes. And where the markup has important semantic significance (as it does here!), removing it is not acceptable. You could perhaps have replaced it with something else. But removal? No. And you did not use an edit summary. That's not OK, use an edit summary to explain yourself when you are changing someone else's work. I will revert your change again. But I don't want to edit war, but it is simply untenable for you to go changing the meaning of a comment I have made on a talk page. That misrepresents my thoughts and ideas and is not OK. Stop! (p.s. above, in the other section, you made two claims. I refuted one of them, and you responded as if I had questioned the second one, which I did not. That's not a good argument style.) JohnHawkinson (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. It looked like an editors error. Formatting like this is not common in a discussion section. In general bold and italic attributes are enough. Think about: Your post is not the only important one there. We also try to start a new section only with a semicolon to avoid a TOC an other side effects. And sorry again, I don't understand your "two claims" issue.--Dgbrt (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. It should not have looked like an editor's error if you were paying attention. And while that reasoning might have worked the first time, it just doesn't cut it the second time. Just look at the history:
 13:53, 17 June 2017‎ JohnHawkinson (talk| contribs) ‎ m . . (+1)‎ . . (Undo revision 141463 by Dgbrt (talk). No. See your talk. And use an edit summsary. And don't change other people's meanings.)
 08:25, 17 June 2017‎ Dgbrt  (talk| contribs) ‎ . . (-1)‎ . . 
 01:48, 17 June 2017‎ JohnHawkinson (talk| contribs) ‎ m . . (+5,176)‎ . . (Oops. Somehow restored an old version by mistake.)
 01:47, 17 June 2017‎ JohnHawkinson (talk| contribs) ‎ . . (-5,175)‎ . . (Restore markup removed by Dgbrt in 141375. Use an edit summary! The markup had meaning. Don't conflate my words with a quotation.)

There was no slew of intervening edits. Reversion of your change was clearly explained in the edit summary, and cited you by name and your revision by number.
Since you are a regular contributor here, you really should be using an edit summary every single time. I understand that the standards for wikis are relaxed here, because most editor aren't familiar with them and we want to make it easy for everybody, but you are an experienced editor so should be held to a higher standard.
Your comment about "your post is not the only important one there" makes no sense to me. In this case the box carries the section, and I think it served as a useful frame of reference for all the subsequent discussion. I agree boxes aren't pretty, but they're cheap and easy. If there's some local convention of appropriate markup that would serve the same semantic role, I don't object. I'm sure we could do something nice with tables, but that's a lot of unnecessary work, I think.
I'm aware that the wiki suggests sections should be "used sparingly." It doesn't give any guidance for that judgement. But it's disturbing to hear that you think the reason is aesthetic. That's a problem because sections have clear semantic meaning in wikis and not using them mean you cannot use semantic tools that understand them. If the feeling is that the section font is too big, the right answer is to edit the CSS and change the section font, not to say "don't use sections." Similarly for TOCs, I don't know what is wrong with a TOC, but you can suppress or move them for individual articles, or disable them globally, if that's the desired effect. Again, not a reason to not use sections.
On the other hand, I didn't revert your conversion from a section to a semicolon/boldface, because it didn't have a significant effect on the meaning of my words, unlike your wholesale removal of the markup around the quotation. Sorry I have gone on too long. JohnHawkinson (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I've removed one space (at the beginning of a line) at a comment page. And I said sorry. It's OK now. And when you want to discuss layout rules please talk to the admins at the Community portal. It's not my invention.--Dgbrt (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry it was lengthy (once space—twice!). If not your invention, is there some documentation of these rules? Your talk page is the only place I've seen them (other than "sparingly"). JohnHawkinson (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Sadly there is no guide, in the past I've just adopted many from admins (not many here these days) and others. So just check some other articles, you will see chaos but also a recurring layout. --Dgbrt (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools


It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.

Want to advertise with us, or donate to us with Paypal?