User talk:wbm1058

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12

Note: Archives may be refactored. Requests for adminship (nomination record 4–0, incl. self) Myself Amakuru Pppery Ahecht

As these are generated by a bot, and I occasionally check or patrol the status of these, I moved them to a special archive: /Disambiguation link notifications. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...so I moved them to the /Content to-do items subpage. Someday maybe I'll get to these... Wbm1058 (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of tumbleweeds rolling over at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers... the last edit added a {{backlog}} template. Now that I'm an administrator, I've decided to focus on clearing the Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge and Category:Possible cut-and-paste moves backlogs first. If Proposed mergers were busier, I'd make this a higher priority.

• Older discussions are at /Automating proposed mergers. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you run MergeBot and RMCDBot, I was wondering, if it were possible to create an auto generated list like WP:RM has but for WP:PM, that links to the centralized discussion area, and lists the topics to be merged (from/to/with) ? As the current MergeBot already generates arrows indicated from/to/with, it would seem a modification of template:requested move/dated/multi would do to handle such an automated listing based on a standardized talk section header.

-- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See § Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD above. Still on my back-burner. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are consolidated at /Adding permalinks to block log entries. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T22307: Consolidated discussions are at my subpage /Generate automatic summary /* blah */ when I manually add a section heading when editing. Hopefully solutions are on the way soon. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 2 §Marking separate discussions – wbm1058 (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no point to having test cases for data modules, since there's no code to test. Also, doc pages that contain a #invoke of the module itself exist so that TemplateSandbox can be used to preview changes of the module. It's fine to add "real" documentation, but the #invoke must not be disabled or removed when doing so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Syrian Civil War map is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded.

I edited Module:Syrian Civil War map/doc, and created Module:Syrian Civil War map/testcases.

Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War used to transclude {{Syrian Civil War detailed map}}, until substituted.

Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map loads Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map.

Template:Syrian Civil War map (created 21 February 2015‎) . . . Wbm1058 (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Syrian Civil War map/testcases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about the state of accuracy in the world on Jimbo's talk page are very interesting. I would like to explore this topic further. I'm particularly fond of your statement, "Society as a whole perhaps doesn't value accuracy as much as it should, and indeed Wikipedia editors should strive for a higher level of accuracy." Heck, I think some kind of variation on this should be our guiding principle. You've really nailed something here, and I think it's worth pursuing. One counterargument to pursuing accuracy, however, might attempt to appeal to the blind men and an elephant analogy. How would you respond to this? Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best we can do is report the truth as best as we know it, and be open-minded to new information that can give us a better vision of the truth. As more "parts of the elephant" become known to us, the more accurate our "truth" becomes. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that you once intended to take your Timeline of DOS operating systems article to featured status, but did not take time to familiarize yourself with the process. Looking at that article, the only thing that is not compliant with the featured list criteria is the lead section. Basically, the only thing required to promote it to FL status would be to expand the lead section by adding an introduction to DOS operating systems. After that, you are good to go and can nominate it according to the instructions on WP:FLC. (Since this article is a list, the Good Article process does not apply.) Good luck! sst✈ 04:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see, apparently there is no "good list" equivalent to Good Article, so I can skip that step and go straight to becoming a member of Category:Featured lists, where around a couple dozen featured timelines can be found. Thanks! As I haven't made any significant updates to that since February, I suppose I'm due to get back to it and finish it off soon. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi wbm, I see you mention this book on your user page. Does the main thesis have implications for how Wikipedia works, and if so, on what time scale? - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A main thesis of the book is that accelerating technology improvements will reduce employment, and over time this will effect more higher-skilled occupations. We see this already with jobs coming back to the US from China... because they are replacing people with bots. Yes, a few more jobs for Americans who are skilled at bot development, operations and maintenance. But way fewer jobs than were displaced in China. Of course, at Wikipedia there are relatively few editors that work for money. We already have very intelligent bots such as ClueBot NG that help tremendously with tasks such as vandalism reversion. That one has over 4 million edits now! Bots also help with spelling corrections. There could be further enhancements to these tasks that could reduce the need for new page patrollers and spelling correctors. Time scale is dependent on volunteer contributions, or possible funding by the Wikimedia Foundation. wbm1058 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The future seems to be coming at us pretty fast. I try to stay informed-but-neutral. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Search deletion discussions}} and {{Search prefixes}} and all that authors other stuff should probably be deleted after emailing him. His {{Create parameter string}} is used but not well.

For now, I'd fix wp: Deletion process § Search all deletion discussions with a search link for each of the fullpagenames in wp:Deletion process § Step-by-step instructions (all discussion types).

I would. And I'd be glad for an invite to help you with any queries or discussions on this matter. — Cpiral§Cpiral 05:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 61 § is there a way to search several sections with one search? – June 10–17, 2009

And User talk:Rainman § modification to search several Wikipedian sections at one time – June 15–17, 2009

And User talk:Stmrlbs/Archive/001 § multiple prefixes – June 15–17, 2009

June 17, 2009 Help:Searching documentation update, alas documentation of this multiple-prefixes-separated-by-pipes feature was removed on October 11, 2009 when this was rewritten, to try to improve usability

"To search multiple sections of Wikipedia with different prefixes, enter the different prefixes with a pipe delimiter."

"This should be especially useful for archive searching in concert with inputbox or searchbox."

• MediaWiki search engine improved, 10 November 2008
  • en.wiki migrated to new search backend, June 2, 2009. Wikitech-l
• Initial import of rewritten Lucene-Search extension
  • History No commits between August 2007 and March 2010. So where is the June 2009 change to support this?

@Cpiral: so clearly prefix did at least briefly take pipes. Unfortunately, the volunteer developer of that, Rainman, isn't active any more either, and I haven't been able to locate his code changes that implemented that feature. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the history lesson. Interesting. Maybe useful.

Anyway, for now we have wp:deletion process#Search all deletion discussions. Hope that helps. — Cpiral§Cpiral 07:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. For notification, the task to switch between new and old interface of user contributions page was rejected. Izno suggested personal gadget/script or something. I would prefer that the switch between old and new be proposed at WP:village pump (proposals). Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George, I wouldn't know how to write a script to change the interface, and I'm not keen on switching between two less-than-ideal interfaces. There should only need be one, fully-functional interface that's adequate for efficiently handling all use cases. What we have now is not such an interface, and we should focus on getting that one improved. I'm frustrated with the current means of interacting with the developers – there is a confusing array of different "phabricators" on this, I'm not keen on the phabricator editing interface, and I don't know whether I should add to an existing phab or start a new one, so I prefer using Village Pump where I can use Wikitext. As I need to use this interface to perform specific tasks, I may report issues I have with the current interface that make it more difficult to get the job done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... How about Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), where we can discuss the user contributions interface? --George Ho (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But, per "defines a solution rather than a problem" I don't know if solutions developed in the idea lab would be welcomed by the developers. I'm not happy with the "handcuffs" placed on us with regard to modes of interaction with developers. Maybe if I just present problems to WP:VPT, and let them either tell me how to achieve my desired result, or make changes to the interface that allow me to achieve my desired result. wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but IMO I don't think WP:VPT is a place for general feedback on any software or something. VPT is used for technical difficulties, bugs, glitches, and other tech issues that need immediate attention (not sure whether I phrased it correctly). One complaint describing none of these, and they'll either advise you to write a personal script/gadget or write one for you as they did before. But you're welcome to choose any appropriate venue. I still think the "idea lab" is best bet. --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of WP:VPT there is a notice "Bug reports and feature requests should be made in Phabricator" but that's just redirecting us back to an interface I find less than ideal. I don't understand why they have such an aversion to Wikitext. I think that's easiest as all active editors are intimately familiar with it. Almost everything the developers in general try to pawn off as "easier" to use, I find to be more of a pain. But venue should be secondary to getting the issues raised, so if you want to start an idea lab thread, feel free. wbm1058 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I just realized that you can go to meta:Tech and then post your concerns there. The developers changed the interface all over the wikis. --George Ho (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, meta:Tech#"Search for contributions" date range. So, let's let the latest bug fix settle in before we try using it again. That page seems like a good place for reporting issues with the Special:Contributions interface, as I hate to go to the trouble to submit a new bug report, only to find that one's already been submitted. wbm1058 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The major bug is fixed. George Ho (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I complained about the new widget date-picking interface after futzing with it and not figuring out how to efficiently make it work to actually select a specific date range. I assumed that it was working as designed, and that I was just too dense to figure out the secret for making it work. So after this bug fix, which I see involves other developers than those designing the widgets (go figure, I don't exactly understand the bug report), I'm happy to report that the widget now works for me with minimal fuss. There's more than one way to skin this cat, so while this might not be my preferred way, I'm not going to fuss about it much if it works. wbm1058 (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 There is still an open task to consolidate the "date pickers".

 @George Ho: FYI. After letting this settle in for several months, I'm still not satisfied with its behavior. I've entered a new Phabricator task. wbm1058 (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...please don't give up on us, yet. 😞 I know you're busy, and I'm not expecting you to devote a whole lot of time to this project, but your input is highly beneficial and I was hoping you would keep helping us work through some of the kinks when you can, especially regarding admin factors we know little to nothing about. What we're hoping to accomplish will focus primarily on clarification and consistency in our WP:Blocking policy with the ultimate goal being editor retention. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had some ideas about this on my back burner. Posting some relevant links here. wbm1058 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• m:Community health initiative/Measuring the effectiveness of blocks
• User:JamesR/AdminStats (show Blocks)
• Daily counts of blocks and unblocks
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit/Statistics (CheckUser and Oversight use)

Ha!! I forgot all about this, Wbm1058! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: It's still on my to-do list, as is replying to your email! Eventually... I keep a lot of burners going on my giant stove, alas some I have to keep down low for a long time. But I let other ppl cook my Thanksgiving dinner ;) wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related to this, i.e. the area of community health and dealing with behavioral issues, is Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Something I haven't really paid much attention to.

There's a helpful search box at the top of that page. "Enter a username into this box to check if they have been sanctioned." e.g. Hmm. DUE, BALANCE, NPOV, RS talk. Followup. More followup. I'll try to help resolve this if I can. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. wbm1058 (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the changes you made to the hatnote on the Bill of rights article. I think it looks perfect! Rockstonetalk to me! 18:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about a Wikipedia Editors' Bill of Rights? wbm1058 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the current situation with Fram, that sounds like a great idea. . Rockstonetalk to me! 19:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you recently removed a large number of {{cleanup}} tags dating back over 10 years. As you noted, these tags were indeed stale, and didn't have reasons listed, but I would say that in most of those cases, the need for cleanup was completely obvious from a cursory glance at the rest of the article. As the blurb for the "Articles needing cleanup" category states: "If you're sure the article has been cleaned up, addressing any obvious flaws as well as any specific problems mentioned on the talk page, feel free to remove the tag. There's not much harm in leaving it on if you aren't certain what to do; the tag will alert someone else to come by later and check up on the article." I spend most of my time on wiki working through these articles trying to sort them out, and without those tags, the article are now "on the loose" in the wikipedia with no warning for readers of their poor quality or way of editors finding them to address their problems. Please bear in mind before deleting any more that editors do actually use these tags and categories. Cheers. Jdcooper (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jdcooper, OK. Here are my relevant 34 edits. I removed a total of 31 {{cleanup}} tags. I did notice that several had been proposed for deletion, and I suppose by removing the tags I'm keeping them from someone else noticing them and putting a PROD tag on the top. Not sure why anyone would want to spend much time to cleanup up a page that was proposed for deletion. I did make a few obvious fixes, but feel free to review them, and if you restore the template and add a reason to it, please also update the date to the current month, which will clear them out of the back end of the queue. I also noticed that in the talk archives the possibility of using a bot to remove these tags had been discussed. But, I'll move on for now to resume working on my more usual tasks, and maybe check back in on this later. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the problem is articles like Dick Brooks (magician) where the creator has now removed the PROD tag and a horrible mess of an article is left untagged. I've gone through and added more specific tags to the ones with obvious problems, but I feel like dumping them in the July 2019 cohort (though that is what I've done) will just leave them unloved for even longer. The reason I poke about in this area of the encyclopaedia is specifically to find the long-term worst articles. But there are always plenty more repositories of such articles, obviously! Have a nice day. Jdcooper (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This backlog still seems to be growing faster than it's getting cleared. Category:Articles needing cleanup from December 2008, which is where I was working in July, was deleted in October 2019, and I just coincidentally found that Category:Articles needing cleanup from January 2009 was ready for deletion. So this has been getting cleared at a rate substantially slower than one per month. On to February 2009. wbm1058 (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to myself. On my back burner is to followup on the purpose for Category:Redirects from incorrect disambiguation. See the edit history of Assassin (movie). Also User talk:Anomie/linkclassifier#Some suggestions. Hopefully will follow up on this a few moons from now, after working through several higher-priority tasks. wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your complaints at User talk:IJBall#Please fix these links immediately, and I wanted to let you know that this should work for you:

mw.hook( 'LinkClassifier' ).add( function ( linkClassifier ) {
    // Delete the "incorrect-title" code
    delete linkClassifier.cats['incorrect-title'];

    // Add the "linked-misspellings" and "linked-miscapitalisations" codes, with appropriate categories.
    linkClassifier.cats['linked-misspellings'] = [
        'Category:Redirects from misspellings'
    ].sort();
    linkClassifier.cats['linked-miscapitalisations'] = [
        'Category:Redirects from miscapitalisations'
    ].sort();
} );
importScript('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js]]

Anomie⚔ 00:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Biked in 50 states!
	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqdkqABDETY Hoping one day you make it to P.R. - Jose Valiente (radio MC) and bike shop owner's son- can hook you up- just need a translator. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wbm1058, I hope you are well. About this topic, did we get any further with this? I feel like it was a bit forgotten and archived, but I'd be very interested in continuing to find a full list of GANs by nominators. I'd love to help get something like this off the ground (I should be a little bit closer to the top 40 now, I've promoted another 30 or so since the discussion)! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Lee I lost momentum on this and let it drift to my back burners. I'll keep it on my to-do list and try to get back to it. Juggling a lot of balls, as usual, and as you can see from the sections above, new requests for my time keep coming in, making it harder to stay focused on more time-intensive projects. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not an issue. I thought about it earlier, and I didn't know if anyone was actively looking at it or not. I've also been busy, so haven't had much time for much! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wbm1058, you did some great work in listing GAs per user a while back. I wondered if you'd consider doing it again and/or doing it periodically? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski and The Rambling Man: – I'm running a new report now, using the last version of my PHP program from 26 July 2020. I started one last night, and it almost completed but died because the drive-by editor Sai5839448 put Category:Lists of good articles back into Category:Good articles, after I had previously removed it. A category is neither an article nor a Good Article. I removed the category and restarted my program from the beginning, and hopefully it will generate a report several hours from now. It will still have the inaccuracies I have yet to get around to addressing, but perhaps is "good enough" for your purposes. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thank you. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work - it's certainly a start, and good for rough amounts. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lee Vilenski and The Rambling Man: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles, as of 17 November 2020 – wbm1058 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is some great work! I was wondering why this credits me with 88, but I credit myself with 96, but then I realised it isn't including articles that went through GA and later became FAs. This seems like a sensible conclusion, but worth mentioning.

For me, the next point would be how we go from here, to a full list similar to user:GA bot/Stats lists reviews done by user. This would be with the view to have a bot maintain a full list similar to how Legobot does now. At least with a full list, we can identify the GAs with issue nominators, and come to a conclusion as to whom should be credited; and get a pseudo-definative list.

Once again though, fantastic work, I'm very happy to see this. I'll try my best to move up the order a bit! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Remember our conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_24#List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles, as of 17 November 2020? I was wondering if any follow-up has happened after that? I see Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by good article nominations is still a red link. I recently wrote some code (using the Wikimedia Eventstreams API) to easily keep such lists up-to-date (by listening to additions/removals of {{good article}} from articles, so that there is no need to regenerate the whole thing on every run). So if you don't mind should I file a bot request to turn that link blue? Just wanted to make sure I haven't missed any further developments on this. – SD0001 (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001: no, I haven't done any more work on this since November. Go ahead and file your bot request. Maybe some time I'll try to improve my code to make the look-ups more efficient as you suggested so I can double-check your results. But I still have more tasks on my to-do list than time to do them all. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:SDZeroBot, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDZeroBot 11. Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by good article nominations looks nice! wbm1058 (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in your opinion what's missing for the merge to go on? Is there anything that should be dealt with? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took some time off from this task to wait for any possible response to my work so far, and to catch up on my usual work queues. I'm back on this now. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to revert you on the template, but I've started a discussion on the talk page on what form of country name to use. Thanks for all the work you've been doing on this though. Cheers, Number 57 22:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit to User:Bamyers99/TemplateParametersTool. Wanted to let you know that the March parameter report is ready. There is a new link for the pos parameter called errors which takes you to the error list. --Bamyers99 (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bamyers99, your tool is really nice. I have a question: why isn't Cheng Fung on that list? |pos=DF,MF isn't one of the four valid valures for {{{pos}}}. wbm1058 (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That page plus others were not displayed because of a bug. The bug has been fixed. --Bamyers99 (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What a speedy fix it was too! You're the best! wbm1058 (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: re: "the ultimate problem appears to be flagicon" – there have been multiple attempts to address this issue:

• Template talk:Flagicon/Archive 1#Template:FlagiconLua started (5 June 2013) – now named Template:Flags
  • "This template provides a clickable icon flag with options to define the size, the link and the label. Its usage is especially recommended in articles with many icon flags. This project is under development." – Development seems to have stalled soon after it started.
• Flagg – Is there a list of pages that are approaching the WP:PEIS limit that haven't converted over to the new module-based {{flagg}} system?
  • "{{Flagg}} (flag general) is a flag template with variable output format. Using Lua instead of the standard mechanism."

My work on this is on hold pending teaching myself more Lua and maybe JavaScript as well. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Python, Flask, CSS developer here. Unemployed and would love to get my hands dirty and gain some more experience. Would like to improve on the above, and learn more about JS and SQL. I also have an art background, so maybe illustration too. Tamccullough (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamccullough: I see you were referred to me from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Regarding the SPLIT table used in the SQUAD sections of the Club manual of style. Our expertise doesn't overlap too much. I don't know any of Python, Flask, CSS, JS and SQL particularly well. I know Wikipedia template coding and PHP. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See #Template talk:Football squad player above. wbm1058 (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wbm1058 I'll look into this then - Wikipedia template coding - and see if I can be of any use at some point. Cheers! Tamccullough (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...on potential improvements for WikiProject Articles for creation: What is missed? That's probably better answered by more-experienced AfCers, but one thing as an outsider admin I'd very much like is improved data on how drafts flow around the system. A log of all AfC submissions & reviews (accepts & declines); a log of individual reviewers' records (similar to the CSD log of NPPers); more clarity on the project's stats. ETA: I've just found Template:AFC statistics but it needs a proper historical log. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

As another "outsider admin", I'm interested in this too, and have the skills needed to create such a log. Adding this to my potential to-do list. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wikimedia movement, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A token of thanks Hi Wbm1058! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

mw:Help:Temporary accounts – wbm1058 (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks on this note. I wasn't sure if it was the script or my error. Let me know if I should revert my manual tag of the new page. Happy to, I just wasn't sure how to best record the AfD where future editors would look. Star Mississippi 15:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: Your manual placement of the template on the new page is what the script should have automatically done for you. Evad37 opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser#Old afd templates placed on talk pages of redirects. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for the pointer to the discussion. Will follow it as I seem to be more active in closing AfDs and wasn't aware of that page. Star Mississippi 16:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status update. Special:Contributions/Evad37. Most recent edit 22 January 2022. Just ten days after opening RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022. Any interface editors willing to help maintain this gadget? Sigh. I'd need to get around to taking a crash course in JavaScript, something I've had on my back-back-back-burner for a long time. Doing that would mean dropping other balls I carry, at least for a while. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Staffordshire Bull Terrier has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wbm1058, have you completed task 2 and no longer require +sysop to be set on this bot? — xaosflux ^Talk 09:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My progress is documented at User talk:Merge bot/Task 2. While my most recent run was on 9 April 2021, this task is still on my to-do list and I expect to eventually get back to it. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving two links here so that when you get time, you can look at possibly developing a BOT or a program that can provide the tools we need. WMF's development team created our curation tool but it took a long time. We are justifiably concerned about the backlog of unreviewed articles, and will probably never catch-up without some form of automation: NPP Feed, and ability to filter reviewed/unreviewed totals by category, date, etc. Atsme 💬 📧 13:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your comment on Mammad Huseyn - it's an interesting quirk of the Page Curation Toolbar that it has a 'translate from other language tag' option but doesn't have a drop-down to specify the language. I'll go back and add it to pages in future. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining how that happened. See Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements#Expand language. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JJMC89 bot added me to the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list @ 00:14, 2 September 2023.

Apparently this 16:14, 1 September 2023 edit of mine triggered that bot? – wbm1058 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm off that list, at least until the next time I edit one of the project's pages. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the messages received during my brief subscription to /New pages patrol newsletter. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-06-08/Technology report

Sometime I'll look at the details of that, and see what's changed since my August 31–September 2, 2023, off-site analysis Scope creep of the autopatrolled usergroup – wbm1058 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template parameters: Infobox settlement – wbm1058 (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• List of current NBA team rosters exceeds the node count limit – wbm1058 (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 78#Update on ONUS RFC  • Wikipedia:ONUS  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:ONUS – wbm1058 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 78#Rewording the contentious "onus" sentence – wbm1058 (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This linked to the redirect. It should happen less often because of some changes ~two years ago, but my experience is that there is a chance of it linking to whatever the cursor is pointing at when I hit Return, rather than the first item in the list, which is usually what I want. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize the talk page didn't move. The complexity of that one was a little higher than normal thanks to the user making preemptive moves that were not advisable. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: I also just moved Talk:California's 14th State Assembly district. You should assume that rm Closer will only handle the easy moves gracefully, and perform more complex moves manually. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did these manually... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry, Sammi, I saw that you posted your close of the discussion using rmCloser and assumed that tool was used to move the page as well (I haven't actually used that tool myself). So now I will assume that you were caught by the issue described at T12814. Does this sound right to you? (1) you filled out the page-move form and "Move associated talk page" was checked when you clicked the "Move page" button. (2) You then saw the warning message: The destination page already exists. Do you want to delete it to make way for the move? (Check the edit history.) (3) You check the "Yes, delete the page" box while keeping the "Move associated talk page" checked as well, then you clicked the "Move page" button a second time. This time the software reports back that the page was successfully moved. (4) The software does not report that the talk page was not deleted and moved, despite your having checked both boxes to "delete the page" and "Move associated talk page" (the software did not show you a "delete the associated talk page" box to check). You need to move the talk page separately now (or you could have WP:G6 deleted the talk page before the move if you were an administrator). You didn't do that because you had assumed that the software would move both pages in a single move operation, as it implied that it would.

If that's what happened, that's OK. I see that you're just a young page mover. I'm kind of an "administrator's administrator" in that I patrol for articles with talk page redirects and I found those pages populating the category. I frequently find pages moved by experienced administrators also populating that category, and having to constantly clean these moves up is wearing. So I just dug up that old low-priority "feature request" for this "enhancement" dating from 2007, reminding me that if you want anything done around here, 90% of the time ya gotta do it yourself! Feel proud that you're the "straw that broke my back" and motivate me to finally become a MediaWiki developer. I've been spending hours and hours over the past several months finishing up these incomplete page moves, and have come to realize that the only way I can relieve the project of that task is to spend hours and hours (more likely several months) figuring out how to fix that bug. And yes, it's a bug not a feature! Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. I would have had no idea that this behavior was the issue. Most of the reason I have pagemover is to handle complex US radio station call sign moves (WP:NCBC is unlike nearly every other naming convention guideline on enwiki). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another developer tried to fix this several years ago. I've installed MediaWiki 1.40 and Visual Studio Code on my desktop PC and will work on fixing this in the coming month(s). – wbm1058 (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• m:User:BPirkle (WMF)/Code Mobs 2023 – wbm1058 (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• T347347 – Make "Quick" MW install a thing – wbm1058 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

c:\php\mediawiki\core> "c:\php\php" -S localhost:80

• MediaWiki Codesearch for delete_and_move_confirm
  • SpecialMovePage.php (commit ceed5c18620fddb38c28780bab98075228a73566) Sun May 12, 2024
  • SpecialMovePage.php (master branch)
    • User:Wbm1058/SpecialMovePage.php
  • en.json (commit ceed5c18620fddb38c28780bab98075228a73566) Sun May 12, 2024
  • MovePageFactory.php (commit ce99bac9ec8c304da5d3690424311ffdb6d0be9d) Tue May 14 13:47:30 2024 (PHP Object Interfaces)
  • PageCommandFactory.php (commit ce99bac9ec8c304da5d3690424311ffdb6d0be9d) Tue May 14 13:47:30 2024 (class PageCommandFactory implements MovePageFactory)
  • MovePage.php (commit 9206752b0ca759986938229a18b5aa47c8d463ed) Tue May 14 17:14:14 2024
• r33565 MediaWiki - Code Review archive – Users moving a page can now have all subpages automatically moved as well. (18 April 2008)
• r35213 MediaWiki - Code Review archive – Re-commit cleaned-up version of r33565 (move subpages along with page). (23 May 2008)
• Technical Q & A: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Configuring Git for Gerrit – wbm1058 (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikimedia Code Review 1034588 Show the page name on the MovePage checkbox for "Yes, delete the page" – my first commit!
  • Wikimedia Code Review 1034602 Add wbm1058 to CI allow list
  • Followup on my Windows 7 SSH keys: Resolving PuTTY conflicts was a real bear. PuTTY got me as far as a successful test SSH connection (don't blink or you'll miss the "Welcome to Gerrit Code Review" message), but I couldn't figure out how to make it work from Git. So I followed the video How to Install SSH in powershell and cmd (Windows 7,8,10), and installed OpenSSH, before I realized that Git already came with SSH as part of the package:

  $ where ssh

  C:\Program Files\Git\usr\bin\ssh.exe

  C:\OpenSSH-Win64\ssh.exe

  Sigh. Then I generated another SSH key and added it to my Gerrit settings. Now I have one key for PuTTY, and another for SSH, on my Windows 7 desktop. Next step:

  $ git clone https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/mediawiki/core.git core2024

  Cloning into 'core2024'...

  FATAL ERROR: No supported authentication methods available (server sent: publickey)

  fatal: Could not read from remote repository.

  This troubleshooting guide led me to find the system environment variable GIT_SSH (with value: C:\Program Files\PuTTY\plink.exe). I renamed it to GIT_SSH_PUTTY. Next attempt:

  $ git clone https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/mediawiki/core.git core2024

  Cloning into 'core2024'...

  ssh: connect to host gerrit.wikimedia.org port 22: Network is unreachable

  fatal: Could not read from remote repository.

  Searched for help with Git on custom SSH port

  • Found the file C:\Users\Bill\.gitconfig and opened it with Notepad++ – that's where my user configuration is stored; everything looks in order
  • Edited the file C:\Program Files\Git\etc\ssh\ssh_config with Notepad++ as an administrator – changed Port 22 → Port 29418 – still no joy!
  • Edited the file C:\Program Files\Git\etc\gitconfig with Notepad++ as an administrator – removed the PuTTY-installed stuff at the bottom – finally, it worked!

  $ git clone https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/mediawiki/core.git core2024

  Cloning into 'core2024'...

  remote: Counting objects: 36035, done

  remote: Finding sources: 100% (1203206/1203206)

  remote: Getting sizes: 100% (64108/64108)

  remote: Compressing objects: 100% (1755545/1755545)

  remote: Total 1203206 (delta 993418), reused 1202776 (delta 993182)

  Receiving objects: 100% (1203206/1203206), 788.14 MiB | 7.41 MiB/s, done.

  Resolving deltas: 100% (993418/993418), done.

  Updating files: 100% (9857/9857), done.

  • Yay! I hope the Composer and git-review installations are easier! wbm1058 (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I figured out what's going on regarding the need for Composer (or not). The core folders I've downloaded from the official mw:Download page always come with a vendor folder (which is required to run MediaWiki), while the developer releases do not. In other words, the people preparing the official releases compose the vendor folder for the convenience of their end-users, while this service isn't provided for those who mw:Download from Git (the folder obtained via

      git clone https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/mediawiki/core.git mediawiki
      

      does not come with a vendor folder). – wbm1058 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The old message, as I reported it:

      c:\php\mediawiki\core>php maintenance/run.php update.php
      

      Error: You are missing some external dependencies.
      

      MediaWiki has external dependencies that need to be installed via Composer

      or from a separate repository. Please see
      

      https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Installation_requirements#PHP and
      

      https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Download_from_Git#Fetch_external_libraries
      

      for help on installing the required components.

    • The new message, after 1034113 – PHPVersionCheck: Clarify Composer dependencies vs PHP extensions

      c:\php\mediawiki\core>php maintenance/run.php update.php
      

      Error: You are missing some dependencies.
      

      MediaWiki has dependencies that need to be installed via Composer

      or from a separate repository. Please see
      

      https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Download_from_Git#Fetch_external_libraries
      

      for help with installing them.

• mw:MediaWiki Product Insights – wbm1058 (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Today I noticed the URL distinction between links to the master (latest & greatest version) and specific commits – wbm1058 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Gerrit requires that your commit message must have a "change ID". They look like Change-Id: Ibd3be19ed1a23c8638144b4a1d32f544ca1b5f97 starting with an I (capital i). Each time you amend a commit to improve an existing patch in Gerrit, this change ID stays the same, so Gerrit understands it as a new "patch set" to address the same code change. There's a Git add-on called git-review that adds a Change-Id line to your commits. wbm1058 (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• :-) the master CREDITS and Special:Version/Credits. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Special:Diff/1197910664, I realised early on that Talk pages doesn't automatically get deleted. Although I do check for talk pages, I missed this somehow. One well-deserved trout slap for myself. – robertsky (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky: right, see #Oops above. I should get back to working on that project. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I change the section title to "Opps I did it again"? 🤔😁

Wow, I was actually thinking that a userscript might be sufficient. Something detects if the talk page isn't moved (as that information is given on the move page after the move), and then pulls out the edit history and current content (truncated, or nested iframe/noscroll small div, if need be) of the talk page for admins to evaluate to see if the target talk page can be deleted for or a pageswap is required instead. But hey, if there are already codes pending in gerrit, why not. – robertsky (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying up after me there, Wbm1058. Just to clarify, when I originally moved the article back to that name, did its talk page not come with it automatically? ——Serial Number 54129 14:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: see #Oops above. I should get back to trying to tackle that. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I see. So I'll do it by hand next time to be sure. Thanks! ——Serial Number 54129 14:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you haven't appreciated, or perhaps not noticed, the huge amount of work I've been taking on from this report for the last year or so. When I had JWB rights, I handled entries with hundreds of incoming links, probably fixing more than a million over-capped places, and a fair number of under-capped ones as well. And I identified, reported, and asked for a fix to the Visual editor UI problem that causes so many of the pipings through under-capitalized redirects. Of course, seeing how useful this report is for tracking things that ought to be addressed, I also added a whole lot of R from miscapitalion label to redirects that came from consensus moves to lowercase, so sometimes the list grew more than it shrunk. Since losing JWB, I've concentrated on the entries with more than 1 but fewer than a dozen incoming links, which is why you see a bit of an odd distribution in that neighborhood, and an ever-growing list of ones with just 1 incoming link. There's just a bit of overhead on each line I take on, so it's not efficient to work on the singles. And the big multiples will be more efficiently worked with JWB, if/when I get that back or someone else wants to help. Sometimes it becomes clear that the best resolution is to change the tag back to R from other capitalization. Anyway, glad to hear you're not anti-me or anti-lowercase. Back to it... Dicklyon (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed another raft of these today. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you see some where you think the R from miscapitalization tag is not quite right, feel free to change them. And if you let me know, I might work on trying to sort out which links really are wrongly capped and which are OK. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that I had gotten the report down from 26 kB (or a peak of 34 kB in July) to about 6 kB in September, in the leadup to my Sept. 15 JWB restriction. Since then, it's been pretty flat, as I work more on lots of little items. I did about 134,000 edits in 2023, mostly working on items on this report. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wmb1058 and Dicklyon, Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations is either broken or the coding is incomplete. The past several months I've been uppercasing linked proper names of wars and revolutions, thousands of edits, and none were listed in this database. A few have some left (I visually scan and don't use a tool for finding the links or words on pages), such as French revolution which has about a dozen left to do, but some still have many hundreds. The next two incorrect casings I'm going to work on are Scientific revolution and Industrial revolution, neither of which is included in that database, and things such as the Age of enlightenment which only has a few dozen to uppercase. If you want to jump in please do so. Bottom line (literally), do either of you know how the database decides what to list or not to list? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping, Randy Kryn. The trick is to edit the redirect change the {{R from other capitalisation}} to {{R from miscapitalisation}}. Maybe you can bring some balance to the area, if you and Dick can avoid fighting over what's Very Important and what's merely important. Wars and Revolutions in first-world countries tend to be Important, so they are capitalized, and we have many reliable sources backing that up. Whereas wars and revolutions in third–world hellholes, these unfortunately tend to be under-reported by the first-world press and are not considered to be as important. This can be a problem for Wikipedia, which endeavors for worldwide neutral coverage. I'd guess that the people living in those hellholes think their wars are Damn Important, the hell with what the first-world "mainstream press" thinks. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been uppercasing what's already Wikipedia-uppercased in the wars, revolution, ages, etc. (been chipping away at what's left of Age of Enlightenment lowercasings since leaving the above message). Dick and I fight (Corn Pop was a bad dude)? Never, we politely disagree. If we fought we'd have more than one mutual ban. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We fight politely, thank you, Randy. Most of the items marked R from miscapitalization are because someone decided, e.g. me after a move discussion, to mark them. I don't know why there are so many inappropriately lowercase redirects, but there are a ton, and mostly not marked. The trouble with their existence is that the visual editor provokes people to use them when linking, due to its stupid UI. So they show up in the report at a steady clip as that interface keeps tempting editors to pipe through them. There ought to be a way to automatically, via bot, fix all those that are just inappropriate lowercasings of proper names; that's a lot simpler than the other direction, deciding what needs to be capped more generally (e.g. the first letter of a descriptive-name link depending on whether it starts a sentence, heading, or list item vs. otherwise). Maybe we should put in a bot request; or you could easily learn to do them with JWB (with probably no chance of errors). We could maintain of whitelist of miscapitalized redirects to fix automatically, and/or define a class of things for a bot to figure out for itself. Let me know if you encounter complications that would make that harder. Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was reading elsewhere and saw that you dislike my efforts at RfA improvement. I welcome any feedback you have about my efforts about how you could see to improve RfA as considering all points of view and thoughts is important to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: – Glad you asked. So I think the goal is to tone down the drama around RfA and to encourage more qualified editors to run. Towards that end:

• Take the ability to block extended-confirmed users out of the standard toolset. Kick that upstairs to a new committee – the English Wikipedia chapter of Universal Code of Conduct enforcement. This committee will either be appointed by the Arbitration Committee in similar fashion as check-users, or elected – by either an RfA-style vote or an Arbcom-style secure-poll vote. Voila. You've just moved most of the RfA drama out of that process to this new process for staffing the UCoC enforcement committee. Oh, and no more Wikipedia:Contentious topics enforcement by ordinary administrators. Only members of the new conduct-enforcement committee will be allowed to impose "discretionary sanctions".
• Make page-moving part of the toolset again. WP:Page mover rights have been a disaster for WP:Requested moves. I want to see more administrators closing requested moves, who have the tools to make technically optimal moves rather than swapping pages (the page-mover kludge). WP:Page mover rights should only be extended on a temporary basis, and expire after six months or a year, with no option for immediate renewal. Page movers should be considered to be on a track to becoming administrators. After working their page-mover "trial", their performance is evaluated to see whether they should be promoted to administrator. I'll be looking for editors who thoroughly clean up after their page moves, and who don't make bad moves that trigger errors which I then need to clean up.
• Add a new "vandal blocker" temporary right, which, similar to page-mover, functions as an administrator training ground. Vandal-blockers will, for six months or a year, have the ability to block IP and non-auto confirmed editors. At the end of their trial, their blocking activity may then be evaluated, with an eye towards promoting the good ones to administrator.
• Editors may serve either as a page-mover or a vandal-blocker, but not both at the same time. After an editor's page-mover term expires, they may opt to ask to be made a vandal-blocker, and vice-versa. Those who can't make the leap to administrator, for whatever reason, may perpetually flip between page-mover and vandal-blocker roles, for as long as they like, and are allowed to based on good performance.

— wbm1058 (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What an interesting concept. Other than the somewhat out of scope idea idea of only having a "committee" that can enforce CT, I think this model is one that could change the tenor of conversation at RfA. I'm in general skeptical of devolving things further from the admin toolset - for the reasons you mention in Page Mover (though Page Mover is still granted to all admin) - but the prods you have put in place address them. Since some have decided we need major RfA reform, I hope you will find a way to put your proposals forward. It's some really fresh thinking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Right, I suppose it is up to the Arbitration Committee, not the community, to decide who is allowed to help the Committee with arbitration enforcement. I suppose that was just an afterthought, and, perhaps a hint. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 4, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Linguae, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only Discontinued
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki (implemented)
  • Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87
  • Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Fastily
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi wbm1058 :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss: I appreciate the work you're doing on that. I may eventually get around to responding to your survey; my time is oversubscribed. wbm1058 (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, there's no rush. Feel free to participate whenever you want, I don't have a deadline or anything. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wesalius/model, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wesalius/model and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Wesalius/model during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. GTrang (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some day maybe I'll analyze the algorithm behind that, with the objective of improving it. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I just found Wikipedia:Seven-million pool and Template:Wikipedia article graph. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you recently decided to edit-summary ping me to claim that "we don't avoid redirects from bad titles" and the bot somehow "making extra work for [you]" with its "stupid creations". You also inexplicably deleted User:AnomieBOT/Auto-G8 from the pages. Perhaps you should have brought your concern to AnomieBOT's talk page, with justification for your assertion that we somehow don't avoid double redirects for certain "bad" titles and whether this work of yours is something community-supported or just something you decided to do on your own, instead of notification-spamming me. You might also want to ping User:CFA who created the en-dash-titled redirects you also criticized as "stupid" after a request at WP:AFC/R. Anomie⚔ 17:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomie: you're populating Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings, which is one of the reports I work to keep clean. I mean, what the point of all those damn tags if they aren't used to do something useful? User:CFA could make themselves more useful by helping me clear that report. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that that database report could usefully exclude links from redirects that target the same page as the misspelling redirect to avoid exactly the situation you're complaining about regarding the tracking of other redirects that depend on the misspelling redirect. Or if that's too expensive or complex, it could probably exclude any p2.page_is_redirect = 1 without missing much of anything important. Anomie⚔ 18:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anomie, Can you fork this query and modify it to show me what you're suggesting? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: quarry:query/84585. Anomie⚔ 23:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want me to do about this? Should I avoid accepting redirects at WP:AFC/R that use em or en dashes? Or is there another issue? These seemed like unproblematic requests. C F A 💬 23:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Whitney Houston - Live - Her Greatest Performances is a legitimate {{R with possibilities}}, an not an {{R from incorrect punctuation}} then it should be tagged as such. But I don't see how that article would not be a content fork. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think RMCD bot is frozen, want to give it a nudge or take a look and see if there's an issue? Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wbm1058, I have requested my bot to run your script as a stand-in while you are away (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/The Sky Bot 2). Ping me when you are back so that I can turn my bot off and you can continue to run yours. Cheers! – robertsky (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bot1058 likewise hasn't been updating Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests/Permalink since 16 July. (So WP:RM/TR edit summaries use incorrect permalinks in the "Requested" link.) cc: Robertsky. -- SilverLocust 💬 09:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverLocust will bring that up later. thanks for the ping. – robertsky (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bring that up => Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/The Sky Bot 3. – robertsky (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Boy's games and toys and girl's games and toys has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 20 § Boy's games and toys and girl's games and toys until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you closed this, but RMs are supposed to last at least 7 days.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: RM is not really designed for dealing with {{current}} events. If you don't feel the term "Assassination" is appropriate for the article title, I suggest focusing your efforts on removing the word "assassinated" from the lead sentence. The title should simply reflect what the article's lead says. Feel free to open or participate in a discussion about that on the talk page. After the {{current}} template comes off the article, it may then be appropriate to start another RM. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard this opinion before. Is there anywhere in policy that discourages RMs for pages with the "current" template? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: There's no hard rules here; just use some common sense. I see there's an RM at Talk:2024 Haret Hreik airstrike#Requested move 30 July 2024, where under discussion is the specificity of the location (Haret Hreik or Beirut) and whether to call the event an "airstrike" or "attack". I can't think of any offensive airstrike that wouldn't be considered an attack. I suppose there's room for arguing it was a "defensive" airstrike. The word "attack" occurs over 30 times in the article, including its {{short description}}, so clearly there are good grounds for the request. I only see eight occurrences of "airstrike" in that article. Note that when there is doubt, we should swiftly move away from "assassination", with no need to wait 7 days, in recent events where facts remain in doubt. There's also a section heading Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh § Assassination which is consistent with the article title. I think it's bass-ackwards to first argue for a title change on current-event articles, and only then after the page moves, alter the content to reflect the title. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize I didn't move the talk page here [1] (I'm usually pretty good about moving pages but I suppose I misclicked here). Thank you for noticing and for cleaning up after me, I seriously appreciate it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out I'm learning things too. I had no idea about WP:MALPLACED. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait ... I added the disambiguation page to the wrong page. Geez. Two mistakes at once. I'm really sorry. That's quite embarrassing. I hope it didn't annoy you too much. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss: No problem. I have you pegged as a quick learner. See #Oops above for another "gotcha" to be aware of. I've still got it on my to-do list to fix/enhance the software to better handle that. Editors had conflated the old and new libraries in New York, so I split the article in two. List of Carnegie libraries in Canada has a line with information about the Carnegie library of Niagara Falls, Canada. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I knew about that. There's so many content gaps that I try my best to work on one thing at a time. I might go to the library to see if there's newspaper snippets to look for sources about this eventually (I did that for Dufferin Islands and got stuff going back to early 1900s but I haven't gotten around to actually using them)! But for the Canadian library, the photo used was for the historical Carnegie library and not any of the actual library branches in the city. When I'm back from Poland I'll take photos for Commons because surprisingly no one else has. Improving content about the Niagara Region has been a long term goal of mine and it never seems to stop 😅

I will definitely check out the Oops section. Thank you for being patient with me and not getting upset about my mistakes. I appreciate that, too. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So hey, you're at Wikimania?! Have fun! I've yet to make it to the big one, but am registered for Indianapolis in October. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I am. This is my first wikimania and so far it's been interesting. Dealing with the time zone difference kind of sucks because I really should be sleeping right now. I'll be at WCNA again this year and it'd be nice to see you again. I may or may not have a session then about mobile editing. I haven't heard back yet but hopefully I'll get a chance to talk about it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read your oops section and I think there's a decent chance that that's what actually happened to me with the first mistake. There's a bunch of technically minded folks I've been hanging out with here in Poland so I'll ask if they have any ideas on fixing it tomorrow. Thank you for noticing this issue, cleaning up all these page moves, and trying to fix the issue yourself. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matma Rex tried fixing it years ago, and helped me with my first MediaWiki code submission a few months ago. I'm guessing he's at the conference. When I was last working on this several weeks ago, I got hung up on understanding the change from the "legacy error array" format to "an array of MessageSpecifier objects". I was wanting to continue with replacing some deprecated code. The actual procedural coding change I want to make feels like it should be fairly simple. It's a shame that I'm getting hung up with having trouble understanding object-oriented syntax and how it works. I still have at least a dozen tabs open in my web browser related to this, and three piles of paper code printouts sitting on my desk. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've met them yet and I'm unsure if they're here. I was thinking of some other editors I was hanging out with yesterday like Novem Linguae, Chlod and Dreamy Jazz. There were a few others but I don't remember their usernames off the top of my head. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matma Rex is here and was in the lobby for a couple hours last night :)

Perusing phab:T12814 a bit... a good tip for understanding stuff like $userPermitted = $mp->authorizeMove( $this->getAuthority(), $this->reason )->isOK(); is to use an IDE like VS Code with the Intelephense extension installed, then load up MediaWiki core, then you can hover over with your mouse things like authorizeMove, getAuthority, etc. and it will tell you exactly what types should be going in and out of the method. You can also click on the method and press F12 to jump to its definition. Then you can also click on the outline icon to see the list of methods in the class. These activities are essential for poking around classes, since they all have "custom" interfaces of custom objects going in and out of various methods. This is OOP's strength (lots of types and type checking being enforced) but also OOPs weakness (it's complex and custom). Screenshots.

Oh, and in general it's not very helpful to var_dump entire classes. You will usually instead want to F12 the method to go to the class, click outline to browse the list of methods, and find a `getX()` type method to retrieve the data you need. Another good trick is to install PHP XDebug, set a breakpoint in the class where you want to inspect, then wait for the breakpoint. Then you can hover over variables with your mouse to see their current values.

I could go on about the purpose of classes but I've seen you write code with classes in it so hopefully you already have a basic idea. The idea is to build a castle around that particular code, precisely controlling what flows in and out from other parts of the program, which has advantages. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Novem Linguae. I do have Visual Studio Code installed, and have found it to be indispensable for MW development. Before I installed it to use for that, I got along fine (and still do) just editing my single-file bots in Notepad. Indeed the framework botclasses.php which, as you know, I inherited and support, uses basic classes. However the code I've been tackling includes interfaces which take the complexity to a whole new level.

You're suggesting that it's worth it to pay $25 to get Intelephense? wbm1058 (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intelephense is free, I think :) Maybe the extension is freemium and paying unlocks some kind of higher level. I would just go install it in VS Code -> Extensions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use Phpactor (which is free with no paid options); it should work mostly the same as Intelephense, but I never compared them. Matma Rex talk 13:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: build a castle around that particular code, precisely controlling what flows in and out from other parts of the program... back in the day, we just called that a subroutine and controlling what flowed in & out was just a matter of the function arguments. Now they're called "methods", a term I'm still in the process of getting used to. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classes are like a collection of subroutines, I think. Somewhere between subroutine scope and global scope. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, a (subroutine) library consisted of subroutines (generally called functions today). The concept now includes other forms of executable code including classes and non-executable data including images and text. It can also refer to a collection of source code. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed at Wikimania, you can find me in the Hackathon room at the table with the "Developer Corner" poster :)

@wbm1058 FYI, the "legacy error arrays" should be completely gone from the page moving code after these changes I made last month: [2]. Maybe that makes your life easier. Matma Rex talk 13:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, right, you just basically completed the project that I had gotten sidetracked into. I see that was a minefield as you introduced a regression (T370669) that was fixed just recently. I'm not sure that will make my life easier but I sure hope it does. Now I need to re-clone or rebase the code I checked out, which is out-of-date because I'm chasing a moving target. And some of my printouts that I marked up with various colored highlighter pens and handwritten notes are out-of-date, too. Will need to backtrack and take a fresh look. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some PHP manual pages I looked up. Saving here for future reference.

• Classes and Objects (PHP 4) Basic classes and objects
• parent parent class
• Constructors and Destructors Constructor (object-oriented programming)
• $this keyword in PHP The Basics
• An interface, together with type declarations, provides a good way to make sure that a particular object contains particular methods
• instanceof s used to determine whether a PHP variable is an instantiated object of a certain class
• The Serializable interface
• interface_exists — Checks if the interface has been defined

– wbm1058 (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did actually do what I promised to do when I got back to Canada (which was take photographs of the local libraries). c:Category:Niagara Falls Public Library (Ontario) now has 11 images instead of none and I'm quite proud of my efforts today. I did a lot of walking around the city. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Congratulations, Wikimedian of the Year! wbm1058 (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Errors are in the sections References and Bibliography. Doncsecz^talk 10:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else helped, and I think I finished, based on what I found for the ISBN on Google Books. That reference didn't have any authors, but I used the editors in lieu. {{sfn}} doesn't work with the title in the first parameter, but it does with editors. Caveat, I don't know the language. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea why there is a need to specify 1= on that page? I've literally in all my editing time never seen that and it's not on the parameters list for template:blockquote. Ogress 18:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a real "gotcha" kind of thing. There's an equals sign lurking inside the text of that template parameter: Bnei Ma'araba (=The people of the Land of Israel)

Equals signs inside templates are used for named parameters. So to be on the safe side, use 1= to "name the parameter" when doing semi-automated edits like that. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Also, I wish it was a semi-automated edit. I don't use any bots or the like, just raw autism.

Thanks very much for your well-reasoned close and sage advice at the Twitter under Elon Musk discussion. I've rarely seen such a crazy timesink as that one... And it's also rare to see so many respected Wikipedians taking a position that seems divorced from reality and digging in on it. We'll see if your suggestion for a move of Twitter gains any traction. It would seem advisable per the age-old policy of WP:NAMECHANGES, but it seems some can't let go of the old name. If we can make it with old favourites such as Sears Tower and Hotmail we can probably do so with Twitter too!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to say the same thing. Thank you so much for the detailed and thoughtful close. Hopefully this will settle things once and for all, at least for the time being. Not keen on the prospect of a 10th RM, as you suggested (I think you missed a couple: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and now 9; these are listed atTalk:Twitter#Old moves). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-ing the thanks here; I was getting worried there weren't any uninvolved editors with both the experience and time/patience to take it on, and that it would just sit open forever. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I considered tackling it myself, but had an unexpectedly busy week so was not doing much CR work at all. Thank you Wbm, this was quite needed and helpful. I appreciate the difficult closes. Soni (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Closer's Barnstar
		I wish to echo others' sentiments regarding the close; that needed to be done months ago, as you said. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything above. Thank you for the detailed close. Svampesky (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone! A barnstar feels a lot nicer than accusations of "supervoting"! I also neglected "Twitter marks the spot" when I reviewed this, as somehow it had entirely slipped my mind. Though reading it again felt like I was reading it for the first time, I did recall having at least given it a glance because I remembered chuckling at "ex-CEO Musk"! wbm1058 (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journal articles are subject to MOS:TITLECAPS. Capitalization Expert (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"When Contact Changes Minds" – a discredited journal article, one of those extremely rare titles where reliable sources nearly universally use sentence case, but Wikipedia's manual-of-style calls for caps (Title Case). Seems the MOS authoritarians have resorted to skirting the edges of the spirit of Wikipedia's sock-puppet rules to push their way. If I had half a dozen guesses, among them I'd probably guess who you are. Maybe if I were to make contact with you at a Wiki conference, I might change my mind about you. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Wbm1058! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nine years! wbm1058 (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amogelang22 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping in to note this wasn't redirecting from a former name but to a former name. But to a historic name is more applicable anyway, so I recorrected. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StefenTower: You just changed {{R to former name}} to {{R to historic name}}. Since the latter template name just redirects to the former template name, you really didn't change anything, and effectively just reverted me. Again, a fort is not a park, and a park is not a fort. They are two different things. "Park" would never be part of the name of a fort. This is simply about a less-notable park located on the site of a more-notable fort. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 3#Template:R to historic name and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 25#Category:Redirects to historic names, which your revert just led me to look at now. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said a fort was a park and vice-versa. But since it's on the site of the former fort, it is redirecting to a historic name of the location. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed something of an edge case. The park is the only member of Category:Pocket parks which is a redirect. The fort was long gone by the time this park was created. It's on the site of an 1800s building, which was torn down to make a vacant lot. The fort presumably had a larger footprint than the pocket park commemorating it. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the article for Sreeleela, new editor Amyousufakon is adding a Facebook page that is 1 day old, has 1 friend and 5 followers. The description also states they are a 'digital content creator'. I've reverted 3 times with an explanation and left messages on their talk page but to no avail.

It could be her FB page, but I've serious doubts. I was trying to avoid the Admin noticeboards as it seems pretty trivial for that? What would you suggest? Thank you. Knitsey (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #10: Social networking sites (such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and TikTok), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Facebook Groups), Usenet newsgroups or email lists. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I reverted the first edit as they were trying to use it for a reference for a partner.

I've sometimes seen the external links contain links to Instagram etc, for actors, Influencer, and singers.

Thank you for sorting it out. Knitsey (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out my mistake on the London, United States redirect. I'm still getting back into the groove of editing after a break and I really do appreciate being called out for errors or missteps as I get back into things. It makes me a better editor/reviewer and it makes our shared goal of creating an encyclopedia a little closer. Just wanted to recognize you and if you find me out of line or making silly mistakes again please ping me and let me know.

Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Hanlon's razor or the 'cock-up theory of history: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". I misread an n for an m. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't win friends and influence people by telling them they're stupid. This is frustrating for me because cleaning up after stupidity (smart people making stupid edits or page moves) has pretty much become my full-time job on Wikipedia. You might reflect on why you didn't understand my edit until another editor reverted you, thankfully saving me from getting into an edit war. {{Confused}} editors blowing right past hatnotes warning them "Not to be confused with"... sigh. wbm1058 (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit...uneasy about your close of Notional-functional syllabus. "Unmerging" the content was never suggested as an outcome, nor do I feel it to be the correct one. Rather than unmerging, why not re-add the content that was removed from the target in 2016? That seems to be better than restoring a one-source permastub. Also, I don't like your phrasing of proper deletion discussion, which makes it sound like RfD is not a proper deletion venue. Can you please back out of your closure, and if you think "unmerging" is the correct course of action, instead leave it as a !vote? I'd like to then respond with my own thoughts on the matter. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. WP:RKEEP – redirect with a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete: nutshell: Pages that have been merged to other articles should almost never be deleted, since our copyright requires all authors to be publicly credited).

Administrator instructions: Do not delete redirs with relevant history; histmerge or move.

• Option for pages which were merged is for redirect pages with significant history to be archived into a talk namespace, and a link to them put into an article's talk page. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Followup status: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 5#Notional-functional syllabus closed as no consensus – essentially keeping my original solution (close) intact. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Premachi Goshta requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 17:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect or redirects you have created has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 26 § Misbehaviour until a consensus is reached. 142.180.11.62 (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized you were at WCNA! I didn't get the chance to say hi but I wish I had because I see your name popping up all over the pedia doing maintenance stuff and it would have been nice to put a face to it. I was the one who did that talk at the state library with an abbreviations quiz. I remember there were only a few people who knew WP:CPMV... I'm now realizing that you were probably one of them. Anyway, hope you had nice travels back home. If you are ever looking for a recipient for odd tidbits or exchanges, or tales of your onwiki and offwiki lives colliding in interesting ways, I'll always accept a good story. Thanks for doing so much for Wikipedia, CPMVing and discussion closing and categorizing and all that. Annierau (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Annierau! Indeed I was at your fast-paced, entertaining evening "lightning talk" in the state library! You sat next to me during the in-progress Working for representation on Wiki but I didn't introduce myself because, well... session in progress. The three women at the front were great, I especially enjoyed hearing the middle one sing! I was actually in the room for the following Turning points in Wikipedia disputes: Research and discussion of resolution efforts but the preceeding session ran into overtime. Indeed I'm among the most active administrators doing history merges, and my User:Merge bot has merged 69,750 pages! – wbm1058 (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got a chuckle out of your edit summary, and I have to agree it is ridiculous for editors to copy over material like that as seen here from another language Wiki, without bothering to translate the cites or include the targets for the cites. Anyway, just wanted to let you know that after some deep dive searching, I found all the refs at it:Testa del Battista, where the material originated from, and all the cites have been tidied up. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaidnoway: Thanks! See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 29#Template:Cita. – wbm1058 (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am wondering if you had read the redirect discussion before reinstating {{R from incorrect hyphenation}}, or if there was another RfD for doing so? —Tule-hog (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I responded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect#Wiped/reinstated template? wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

That was one long survey. Did I miss a door prize? Gift card? Drmies (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Indeed. No, of course no door prize, gift card, nor thank you for participating. I gave them my email and OK to contact me for a personal interview, but will be surprised if they actually follow up on that. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why no prize Amogelang22 (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still a problem? I noticed you mentioned me in an edit summary. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss: Yes, indeed, still a problem. I'm committed to solving this eventually, before discussion about it overruns my talk (I'm about to resort to creating a talk sub-page to consolidate all three sections). I have several long-term projects; I just recently finally got to one of them after over a decade, and recently archived it. I still want to finish filling out my User:Wbm1058/Cross-namespace redirects table, and clearing my most important work queues, and then I'll take a big chunk of time to focus on solving this. I did get some help from a Canadian volunteer developer while we were in Indianapolis, so have a general idea about what I need to do next. I've given up on the idea of convincing WMF management to assign an employee to work on it. My motto: if ya want something done around here, ya gotta do it yourself. In the meantime I still ping editors as a gentle reminder to tend to talk pages separately, until I finally install a fix. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MMiller (WMF), do you think you'd know someone who could fix this? Because this guy has spent countless hours cleaning up after this bug and I'd like to make his life easier. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Clovermoss and @Wbm1058 -- thanks for pinging me. Do you have a link to something that describes the bug? I'm sort of getting the gist from clicking around, but wondering if you know whether it's filed in Phabricator or described on a wiki page somewhere. MMiller (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MMiller (WMF): Start with #My MediaWiki core developers thread above. There you'll find a link to T12814. Where I'm at with this: there have been previous efforts to make a "move-page factory" by breaking out functions from SpecialMovePage.php but that file is still a difficult monster to work with. Maybe break out the "show form" piece to separate unit? – wbm1058 (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers, @Wbm1058. I see that you were working with Catrope on this a bit this year. Just so I know your status -- do you want to keep working on it, with help from another developer (Catrope or otherwise)? Or are you putting this down for now and you would be happy to see it get solved by someone else? MMiller (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding. I should pick up this dropped ball again, and see how far I can get with it this time. Though I wouldn't be upset if someone beat me to a good solution, there would potentially be great satisfaction in solving this in a way that I like, rather than taking a chance on someone else's solution that may not be my preferred way to do it. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to MMiller (WMF) to make sure he sees this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Clovermoss and @Wbm1058. A few people who I'd like to talk to about this aren't around next week, so I'll get back to you the week after! MMiller (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MMiller (WMF). I see your user page says I am now the Senior Director of Product for the Core Experiences group but the mw:Core Experiences page is obsolete. Is your group connected with the mw:MediaWiki Platform Team which is one of three components of the mw:MediaWiki Engineering Group? Also I see that mw:User:Roan Kattouw (WMF) is leading the mw:Design System Team to "design and build front ends on Wikimedia platforms". As I perceive the page-moving software as a front end, I'm not sure whether my task is more relevant to design-system or platform. Bartosz (Matma Rex) from Platform, among others, was most helpful with getting me started with my first commit, six months ago. I've also been helped (at North American conferences) by Bawolff. Noting his comments at m:Talk:Campaigns#Campaign proposal: tech development campaign "I don't think gamification matters when volunteers leave due to long code review waits" I want to do whatever I can to avoid that. I think my strategy may be to push small, incremental, more easily reviewable changes, like my first commit, rather than do it all at once.

I've reviewed my progress from May, and feel I better understand the set of git commands now. As advised above I'm working on installing either the Intelephense or Phpactor extensions into my VS Code. Now I'm running into errors running my localhost: Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 30 seconds exceeded in C:\php\mediawiki\core\vendor\composer\ClassLoader.php on line 429. Need to figure out what's happening there. My localhost was slow in May but at least it worked. Now it's so slow it's timing out, or giving errors as above. I'm thankful that wikitech:MediaWiki Engineering/Runbook/Daily duties#Rotating includes "Every couple of days, check w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) for issues related to our team's work and respond if you feel comfortable, or mention the discussion in our team channel if appropriate." I'm also on Telegram, but don't know whether Telegram can port to the appropriate IRC channel. Village Pump may still work best for me. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your install is only for development so performance doesn't matter too much, the easiest fix for this is to just increase the time limit. You can do this by adjusting the max_execution_time configuration in php.ini, or just setting set_time_limit(100); in LocalSettings.php. (the underlying issue is probably something related to cache config, but hard to be certain). If you are not a fan of irc, you might want to check out the mediawiki discord which is pretty active. Bawolff (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Right, I just bumped the max_execution_time configuration in php.ini from 30 to 60. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. regarding my comment about patches languishing. I perhaps got a bit frustrated a few years ago at how code review works. However please don't let that discourage you. Mediawiki core platform (or whatever they are called now) has made a big effort to be more responsive to patches. Especially for the type of thing you are working on (mediawiki core self contained business logic fixing a very well defined bug) i suspect the patch would be reviewed in a reasonable time frame. If for whatever reason it isn't, ping me and i'll make sure it gets looked at. Bawolff (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mw:Developers/Maintainers#MediaWiki core lists components which have stewards and individual maintainers. I see that one is Merge history. There is a current discussion about that at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Log the use of the HistMerge tool at both the merge target and merge source, which is basically just an appeal to the maintainers to get to work on one or two open tasks. There is nothing specific on that maintainers list for moving pages, but I suppose this falls under component Special pages, which is listed as Unassigned. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matma Rex: My machine was showing the message "PHPactor is not supported on windows". I Googled that, and found Getting Phpactor running on Windows – it almost works! Is that you? Seems like a lot of hacks to jump through to (maybe) make it work. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah… It doesn't quite work. If you're using Windows, I wouldn't bother with it. Matma Rex talk 03:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: After installing Intelephense, I'm getting errors: Undefined method 'getAuthority'. intelephense(P1013)
No quick fixes available No kidding. No quick fixes for Task T12814. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you scanning with Intelephense? One of the MediaWiki core files? By the way, lots of files in MediaWiki core have Intelephense false errors for various reasons. For example if the file is missing a `use MyClass;` type statement at the top because the conversion to PSR-4 is still in progress. I think WMF devs often use JetBrains IDE so don't see or fix the Intelephense errors in VS Code. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: SpecialMovePage.php (master branch). This is the third section on my talk relating to #My MediaWiki core developers thread. My ping is followup to your advice in #Thank you. Right, my search for "use MyClass" doesn't find any. – wbm1058 (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big block of use statements in that file. There are seven instances of getAuthority. I don't see a use for it; not clear whether there is a missing use. All seven are $this->getAuthority() – I'm still needing to get the hang of how to quickly figure out what this $this is. When I hover over $this I see "Refers to the current object $this". Gee, that's helpful (not), what's the current object? That's without Intelephense. With Intelephense installed, it says @var $this $this – still not helpful. It should tell me what that is when I hover. Also need to familiarize myself with the namespace statement; presumably a PHP namespace is an entirely different concept than a Wikipedia namespace.– wbm1058 (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, big picture. This entire huge file is a class:

class SpecialMovePage extends UnlistedSpecialPage {

Hovering shows: Undefined type 'MediaWiki\SpecialPage\UnlistedSpecialPage'. intelephense(P1009) No quick fixes available

Stop, do not pass go. If intelephense can't even find the "template" class that this class "extends", it's not going to be helpful at all. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meantime, I'm posting here my log of over 400 pages I deleted as Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#U2 userpages of nonexistent users. This, in my view, demonstrates another need for improving the user interface so that users don't make this cross-namespace page-moving error so often, because they neglected to tend to a necessary drop-down box specifying the namespace to move to. I haven't searched for a Phabricator about this issue, so I don't know whether one's been submitted yet. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, this page moving problem (different from the other one we talked about a few months ago) is T50239, and I would say it's a classic. It's clear that the namespace+title input field is not very understandable for most users, but it's not clear to me how to make it better. The root of the problem may be that namespaces by themselves are just confusing. Matma Rex talk 21:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's it. Anther decade+-old Phab to add to my to-do list. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear wbm1058,

Why did you have to be like a jerk to me? I really do NOT know how, I tried the best I can, you EXPECT perfection. I am not familiar with this type of stuff, I tried the best I could. You should know I did the effort to try.

You were like “Move to Tropical Storm Harold (2023)? (Requested move 28 October 2024): User:AwesomeAndEpicGamer, what part of "Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly" don't you understand. Follow instructions at Template:Requested move, please”

How hurtful to say this to someone who is not familiar with this stuff instead of willing to do fixes or to help out, very hurtful to me.

I TRIED the best I could.

AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. More specifically, Template:Requested move#Suppressing the signature or the section heading is helpful for solving your issue. You should realize there are hundreds of new editors like you floundering around, with dozens more arriving practically daily. Meanwhile, there is just me and maybe a handful of editors still around who know how to help you out. That dynamic tests the patience of the best of us. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay… well I did try my best for real though to make it perfect… and I apologize if I got panicky there.

AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for creating it. I would have if I knew how, but can no longer. I used a hack before, moving/renaming articles/redirects, but that is no longer available for some reason. So if you can point me to how you do it, then great! I think there's still some official process that I forget about, that may not create immediately...

I though nobody would care really or notice that the redirect didn't actually exist (sorry!), just take it as the one with the regular hyphen redirected there. But yes, it wasn't technically correct for the correct ndash variant. comp.arch (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Comp.arch: there ya go: User–machine interface. Just click on that red link, then edit and publish the page as another redirect to that topic. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I did a round robin swap of Mav for MAV was so that the underlying deleted history of what is now the incoming redirect would not be mistaken for the history of the disambiguation page itself. BD2412 T 23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Head Chef (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: that's what you are, too. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe, found this while checking what linked to my timeline, in turn after checking links to an article I expanded, John Holt (veterinarian), because of this edit, which has been one of the few times I've even come close to the edit summary limit since it was changed in 2018. I know my edit summary at the Holt article has some bad pronoun usage, but it's too late to change that now. I also know that my timeline needs a bit of an update. Graham87 (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:RMCD bot/botclasses.php

 – wbm1058 (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a really great piece of code and it's nice to know someone cares about it. I've been playing around with it a bit lately and I fixed one oversight that really made my job easier. I hope it doesn't get left alone again. Thanks again. Orfur (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]