User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wbm1058. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

I just noticed the change in the re-direct for "60s punk". I was not aware that there had been a discussion about moving its re-direct from garage rock back to proto-punk. I think that the debate needs to be re-opened and the matter re-considered. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: Sure, start a new discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, and make all your arguments for changing it there. Follow the instructions at WP:RFD#HOWTO. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

At Black Falcon's talk page, administrator JLaTondre told me that having a whole new discussion is unnecessary in light of the fact that the old discussion was in 2011 and that Garage rock article has expanded so much over the past few years. Back in 2011, there was not much sourced information on the topic here (the way we have now), so it would not have been possible to direct it the way it is now. JLaTondre told me that it would be OK for me to just go ahead and change the target back to garage rock how Ilovetopaint had it. So, I went ahead and re-directed "'60s punk" back to the garage rock article. The sourced information in the garage rock justifies where we have it now. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Virgin Media Television is also the name of a company in Ireland which is active and not defunct unlike the UK one. Nua eire (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Nua eire, see Virgin Media Ireland § Television.

Virgin Media Television may need to be disambiguation if the meaning has changed to mean a specific channel in Ireland, as there are several links referring to its former meaning that would need to be fixed. wbm1058 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I have been told in no uncertain terms not to make changes while the scope of this article is under discussion. I've rolled back both mine and yours. deisenbe (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Fort Gadsden was moved to Fort Gadsden Historic Site. wbm1058 (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Investment Company Institute

So I am well aware of how hatnotes work and there was a reason for that one (that I'm sure will be contentious), have a look at the link provided in this Google search here, basically Google takes ICI to mean Investment Company Institute so I thought we should have a way to link people to the disambig page (maybe via a different hatnote though) but this is some questionable logic because it isn't our job to deal with Google I understand that. The reason I did it is I Googled ICI looking for Imperial Chemical Industries and was completely unable to find it without manually typing ICI (disambiguation) into the Wikipedia search bar... (couldn't remember the company name and was looking for it) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: I see your point, and have restored a tweaked version of the hatnote, to keep the page out of Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wbm, hope you're doing well. I noticed you declined the move I had requested. I have initiated a discussion at Talk:Synchronised_swimming#Making Artistic swimming the primary article for any opposes to the proposed move. I shall contact you again in a week or so if there's no opposition. Warmly, Lourdes 03:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, see the last two edits by your bot to Abdul Haseeb. --Saqib (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Why it acting so weird? --Saqib (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Saqib, take a look at the talk page: If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{Requested move/old|…}} tag.

I fixed it. wbm1058 (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --Saqib (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, carriying the moves per Talk:Uber, the script failed to perform the round robin move. Later I manually moved one page. But the script had already deleted one page. Would you please take a look at it as soon as possible? (in my contrib history), I will not edit it to mess it up further. Also pinging Muboshgu as he seems to be online as well. Thanks a lot, and I apologise for the mess. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

this issue has been. I apologise to all the sys-ops I contacted regarding this. ~~~~ Yoda —usernamekiran(talk) 01:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: This type of move is very tricky for a page-mover to do. Next time, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Page mover#Establishing a primary topic. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for covering up for me. I was going to do it properly (I've done it a few times before), but something happened, and I got error "step 2 of round robin move failed" (or something similar to that). When I re-checked everything, one page was deleted; and as a non-sysop, there was no way for me to repair the damage. Thanks a lot again. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

i was trying to change an edit before yours so i had to undo yours to undo his עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I tried putting it after the first paragraph. That seems to be the best look. Free-roaming horse management in North America Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Might want to delete this revision while you're at it. ToThAc (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean to overwhelm you, but here are some more I found:

• This one,
• this one,
• this one,
• this one,
• this one,
• this one,
• this one,
• this one,
• this one,
• this one and this one,
• this one and this one,
• this one all the way to this one.

ToThAc (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That was me mistakenly putting the edit summary into the article.104.163.147.121 (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clay Thompson. Since you had some involvement with the Clay Thompson redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. §pur§y§ituation§ (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

At a quick glance, the first article is a not terrible good stub, which you've edited hence me being here, the other a pretty terrible longer article that equates Political Islam with Islamism. Thus at the top of the article is " For the movement of "Political Islam", see Islamism" while of course when you search for Political Islam you find an article that differentiates it from Islamism. There seem to be a lot of reliable sources discussing "political Islam" but not calling it Islamism. I see it was started by an IP with the edit summary ". (this article is an exact copy of the one censored under the title Islamism, this article replaces that one, and complements militant Islam (on specific groups, tactics, doctrines))" and has been changed radically so that it's hardly the same article.[. (this article is an exact copy of the one censored under the title Islamism, this article replaces that one, and complements militant Islam (on specific groups, tactics, doctrines))] The two articles seem to have developed without editors knowing about the other one. I'm not sure what to do about this. Any suggestions? Take it to a Wikiproject? Strip one and merge? Doug Weller talk 17:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: My relativley minor edits were because the article landed in one or more maintenance queues that I patrol for soon after it was converted from a redirect to an article. The culprit was the lying hatnotes on the Islamism article. I don't have any special knowledge of this topic area and it strikes me as something likely prone to issues with competing points-of-view. WP:WikiProject Islam is probably a good place to start a discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for fixing that "parser function error" in one of my sandboxes. It's a good thing we have admins like you willing to that kind of tedious maintenance. I don't know how often people say so, but it's appreciated. Cheers! - ^theWOLFchild 07:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I think someone searching for info on Fort Pillow is much more likely to be seeking info on the battle, not the state park. deisenbe (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I've put this up for discussion at WP:RfD. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wbm1058, thanks for the clean-up. I noticed on your talk page that you made note of the apparent fact that 57% of Canadians aged 24 to xx have a college degree, while 40% of similarly aged Americans do. You might be interested in a recent book by Bryan Caplan The Case against Education Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money [1] who argues that the US would be better off if the 40% were 20%. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: I watched this interview with the author on CSPAN, though I confess to falling asleep halfway through it and not being sufficiently motivated to replay the part I missed when I woke up. He makes some good, albeit basic, points. I think his own economics courses are probably boring and a waste of time and money for many of his students! Regarding "Government needs to sharply cut education funding to curb this wasteful rat race", the first thing I would do is eliminate the exemption of student loans from ordinary bankruptcy rules. Government is subsidizing the bankers by allowing them to offload the risk of loan defaults onto the students. Without this government-backed "loan-default insurance" the wellspring of loans will dry up significantly, and when it does, the schools will be forced to reduce tuition because of the lack of students available who can pay inflated prices. Regarding "more vocational education, because practical skills are more socially valuable", I agree, more practical education and less theory. With the increasing rate of change in technology, practical education has a shorter and shorter shelf life, so the need for mid-career re-education in the latest practical skills is increasing. But we should still be endeavoring to increase the percentage of students who get quality practical training, not decrease it. Vocational education isn't just about learning to be a plumber or electrician though. Legal and medical research is a practical skill too, and the bots are coming after the lawyers' and doctors' jobs too. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Definitely agree with you. I teach part-time in an US "Ivy League" school, and long ago had some exposure to the products of the Swiss apprenticeship system. I would like to see much more use in the US of apprenticeships, and far less of Liberal Arts. Most of my students would be much better off working rather than sitting in classes they have no interest in just to get the credential, which they need because the people they are competing with have the credential. That part of schooling is just a Prisoner's Dilemma. And there is no need for doctors or lawyers to have an undergrad degree. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: The 42-minute Canadian documentary Generation Jobless set me straight on the idea that Canada has got this any better than the USA, and also made a plug for the Swiss system. wbm1058 (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: - now if we can just convince more people of this. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to add to the confusion: Gillespie, Angus Kress (2011), Crossing Under the Hudson: The Story of the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, Rutgers University Press, ISBN 9780813550831, The avenue has two numbers and two spellings. It's numbered Routes 1 and 9 and is spelled Tonnelle Avenue in North Bergen but Tonele Avenue in Jersey City. The road is named for the first chairman of the North Jersey District Water Supply Commission, John Tonnelle or Tonele. He spelled it both ways himself, leading to everlasting typographical confusion ... Djflem (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Djflem, right, I hesitated to correct more of these linked "misspellings" when I saw the different spelling used in the train station articles, e.g. Tonnelle Avenue (HBLR station). Then I stopped after I read the Times article "ROAD AND RAIL; Lipstick On a Pig". I was waiting for possible responses just like yours, thanks. This reminds me of another guy who seems to have spelled his name differently at different times, Henry S. Parmelee (or Henry S. Parmalee, or Harry?! see the talk page). Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your undoing of my edit here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dypsis_lutescens&oldid=prev&diff=834449271

1. "Areca" palm is a common name for several species of palm. While it's the first "hit" on Google for "Dysis lutescens", it is used in the Philippines as an alternative name for the "Betel" palm. Given that the same word can lead to two completely different species, a disambiguation of some sort is needed, whether a "redirect" or not.

2. Rather than "undo", why not "fix" the issue? If you're good at the tech side of Wikipedia, please consider repairing the issue rather than undoing it. Because at the end of the day, I identified a problem that needs a solution and I applied a solution. But then you undid it, so now what?Ryoung122 21:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ryoung122: Areca catechu is one of the species in the genus Areca. I reverted your hatnote because it wasn't telling the truth. Areca palm does not redirect to Dypsis lutescens; rather Areca palm is a "set index article" that indicates the term could mean one of two things – this is "a disambiguation of some sort". I see that there is another article about Betel. So I don't see anything that obviously needs fixing, but neither am I an expert in this area. If you still see something that still needs fixing or clarification please feel free to make changes. I'll only revert if you make edits that land pages into problem categories that I patrol for. wbm1058 (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about "verifiability", not "truth". And my statement was "truthful" to the best of my knowledge.

Moving on to the real issue here: the vernacular meaning of "areca", a common name for several different palm species, leads to confusion...thus the need for disambiguation. I'm proposing that the most-common hit result on Google (dypsis lutescens) be the default return and that disambiguations be given for other species that also are sometimes referred to by the same name.

I know a lot about palms...it's the Wiki-redirecting system that I'm not as familiar with.Ryoung122 17:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ryoung122: Just noting that there are separate "disambiguation" pages for both "Areca (disambiguation)" and "Areca palm", and it's not clear to me which one you're concerned about (perhaps both?). At the moment, the genus Areca is the primary topic for "Areca", but there is no primary topic for "Areca palm". There is a previous discussion on Talk:Areca about whether the genus should be the primary topic for "Areca". I don't know much of anything about palms, so a one-on-one discussion with me isn't the best way to resolve your concerns. I suggest you could start a new discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants which would hopefully draw in others with more knowledge of this subject matter. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I added a third disambiguation link to the areca palm page. I'll discuss this further on the WikiProject plants section.Ryoung122 18:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.55% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for April: April+Further with Art+Feminism Archaeology Military history (contest) Geofocus: Indian subcontinent Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott, I appreciate this note and invitation, but I don't recall actually creating any articles on women and their works. What I have done is address issues with some articles on women and their works that others have created, as I run across them in my patrols. Sorry, my interests and aptitude tend more towards the technical side of Wikipedia maintenance, and my time is pretty oversubscribed, so I don't have time to become more active in this project. Good luck with it though. wbm1058 (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about this. The bot picked up Lynn Cecilia Eusan (but I see this was just a page move) and Margaret C. MacDonald which you edited, adding categories. Bobo.03 might like to check them out and see why they were included.--Ipigott (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: No problem. MacDonald was a history-merge of a content fork, see Talk:Margaret MacDonald (nurse). The bot just needs to distinguish page creations as a result of page moves and history merges. Maybe also redirect creations. I create a lot of redirects. The other article I recall putting significant time into is Vibert Douglas (Alice Vibert Douglas). wbm1058 (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I left a note on User talk:Eburleson thanking them for that creation. I recalled the park named after her, but not her story, which made me feel both proud and sad. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! A proposal has been made for the Ohio Wikimedians User Group to release a statement in support of net neutrality, amid similar statements of support from the Wikimedia Foundation and other U.S. affiliates. If you're interested and have thoughts on the matter, please comment here (within the day if possible; if there's support we'd like to make our stance known as soon as possible). Thank you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about my change to {{age in days}} breaking articles using {{uspop}}. Thanks for reverting. I monitored various things but did not look at Category:ParserFunction errors which would have shown the problem. The issue was that the old template accepts weird combinations of syntax and {{uspop}} contains

{{Age in days|{{Uspop-startyear}}|{{Uspop-startmonth}}|day1=1 }}

which, using the current values of {{Uspop-startyear}} and {{Uspop-startmonth}}, is equivalent to:

{{Age in days|2013|12|day1=1 }}

In other words, year and month are given as positional parameters, but the day uses a named parameter. Using the module, the fix is to omit day1= (or insert year1= and month1=). I intend trying that soon but I will first attempt to see where {{age in days}} is used in templates to determine if others would need similar fixes. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Johnuniq. It's only once in a blue moon that I patrol Category:ParserFunction errors, so just a happy coincidence that I found and reverted your change within a few hours. I was doing a periodic review and archiving of old sections on this talk page, when I got to this one which prompted me to check the category. Otherwise it could have been another month or two before I patrolled that category again. I trust that you can fix it. While I can muddle around with Lua modules, I haven't yet taken time to become proficient with coding them. P.S. I assume that an editor used similar non-standard syntax in these Croatia-related articles that you patched and I reverted as well. wbm1058 (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Good! I changed {{age in days}} to use the module again and will track parser problems for a few days at least. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI - SNUGGUMS moved page Ringo to Ringo (disambiguation) over redirect. Should this page be watched? Evnoweb (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I've opened a requested move discussion on Talk:Ringo (disambiguation). You are invited to participate in that. wbm1058 (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I do not know so much about Korean name-spelling. But one of these two redirects Kim Seok-Jin[2] and Kim Seok-jin[3] should have {{R from member}} and one of them {{R from typo}}. Unless both ways to write Jin/jin is allowed. The "Jin" redirect was the name of the article and I guessed that was the right way to spell his name... Christian75 (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Christian75, see Talk:Kim Seok-Jin#Requested move 10 February 2018 and the section above that. wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Aloy (Horizon Zero Dawn). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Netoholic @ 07:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't created the article yet as (1) I still need to corroborate some of the information I do have on them.(2) The creation of new articles is not something I have any experience with and someone may challenge its very existence...which brings me back to point (1). Researching more on them, so I can defend the note-worthyness. WP:NOTABLE.

UPDATE. Alright, I got around to creating a short article...hope it gets accepted. It'll remain a redlink until then. Boundarylayer (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Boundarylayer, I just created the redirect Terufumi Sasaki to Hiroshima (book). Your draft doesn't say much more than what the Hiroshima (book) article does, and if he is only notable via mention in that one book, then I suspect your stand-alone article wouldn't stick, but the redirect will. See WP:BLP1E. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you undo that redirect please? I have a lot of material on him that has nothing to do with that book. How can I add this material with the re-direct you've created?

Terufumi Sasaki led intensive research into the syndrome in the weeks and months following the Hiroshima bombings. Dr Sasaki and his team were able to monitor the effects of radiation in patients of varying proximities to the blast itself, leading to the establishment of three recorded stages of the syndrome. Within 25–30 days of the explosion, the Red Cross surgeon noticed a sharp drop in white blood cell count and established this drop, along with symptoms of fever, as prognostic standards for Acute Radiation Syndrome.^[1]

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that Terufumi Sasaki is a standalone article now, so this has been happily resolved. It is a simple matter to move a newly drafted article over a redirect. wbm1058 (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You've unilaterally unblocked B2C, which is your prerogative, but I don't see that you've applied the topic ban, for which there was heavy consensus, at B2C's talk page. Are you going to do that? If not, I don't see this going well. (You also need to ping Dennis Brown as the blocking admin, as he said at the time "a note is expected"). Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The conditional unblock policy presumes that there was a sound basis for an indefinite block. As discussed at User talk:Born2cycle, I don't see a solid basis for an indefinite first-time block of this editor based on WP:DE. Therefore, I view it as a ~ 3-month limited duration block which has de facto expired. Their "first strike", so to speak. I don't think an indefinite block with conditions should have been imposed until they had accumulated at least another strike or two. I was hoping to avoid the further drama of this possibly being taken to WP:ARCA, but if you choose to insist on a topic ban right now, I suppose that can't be avoided. Hoping that you at least think on it some more before you escalate this. I've left a note on Dennis' talk page. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm obviously not going to do anything unless B2C actually does come back, but should he do so - and return to the behaviour that prompted the AE in the first place - then I don't think ARCA or similar could be avoided. Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, these are the discussions here and here that confirm WP:Orphan that orphan tags should only be added if there are no valid incoming mainspace links not including disambig links so the orphan few parameter is in contravention of WP:Orphan and consensus, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Atlantic306. I'm aware of several past discussions on this matter, but you've linked me to two I hadn't read before. The first discussion, from September – November 2011, predates the October 2012‎ creation of |few= and Category:Low linked articles. I also read the followup discussion "Possible new bot?" further down that archive page and the sidebar discussion at Wikipedia talk:Orphan/Archive 1#Isolated articles. Yet further down Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage/Archive 2 I see a proposed change to Template:Orphan. That discussion had three new participants who neither participated in nor acknowledged the two earlier discussions. The third discussion resulted in the (bold) addition of the three additional parameters that have caused so much trouble over the succeeding years. Thus, the proposed Category:Articles needing additional links or Category:Isolated articles became Category:Low linked articles. Note that per Template talk:Orphan#few parameter this "few" parameter continues to cause much confusion. This has been on my back burner for quite a while, as I hadn't really seen a strong consensus on what to do about it. Now that I've read more of the background discussions prior to its creation, and the more recent village pump discussion you pointed me to, I feel more confident in the resolution. I'll take this back to Template talk:Orphan for a more definitive resolution soon. It's helpful to see that Category:Low linked articles is now empty. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• • Thanks, yes it does seem redundant in view of the VP consensus and lack of use, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Followup at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage/Archive 3#Deprecating the =few parameter. wbm1058 (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you move Cho Hyun-woo -> Jo Hyeon-woo?

This issue don't need discussion. But concensus almost reached.

Please close discussion and move article title. Footwiks (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 08:22, 28 June 2018‎

Shouldn't hurt too much to let this one run another day or two. I'll take a closer look at it later if nobody beats me to closing it. wbm1058 (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... discussion on User:S.A. Julio's talk page... discussion on User:Hhkohh's talk page. @Footwiks: as an editor who has made over 30 thousand edits over nearly eight years, you should know better than to waste the time of multiple uninvolved editors. There is no reason this matter should not have been kept on Talk:Jo Hyeon-woo. Your hyper-editing of that page was somewhat disruptive; you shouldn't make edits that remove your signature from previous edits. By the time the move request closed, there was no timestamp on your signature, and it was unclear whether you supported the move, or simply commented about the matter. Please familiarize yourself with the WP:Requested moves instructions. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

MY user page Rasgulla (Film) was published. But I want to Change page Publish Name. It's Rosogolla (Film), regarding invention of Rasgulla desert, But there spelling is different. So I request change this Name. Rasgulla is not the right name of Movie. Bhattacharya rani (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Read the box at the top of the Talk:Rasgulla (film) § Requested move 3 July 2018 section. "The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached". We wait, to give other editors a chance to respond. If there are no objections or different opinions by July 10, then the page will move to Rosogolla (film) on or about that date. The parenthetical "(film)" is in lowercase because the word is not a proper name. Please be patient. wbm1058 (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you help me split DRV like 2007 March/May. The proposal format is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, I see that Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August was in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May still are. As these are now over ten years old and the last of the deletion review archives that are too big, it's tempting to finally clear up this problem. I've occasionally worked on clearing Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded in the past (generally focused on articles in the category) and now it's down to 544 members. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hhkohh, I see that Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive has a table dating back to 2006. From February–November 2006, the table was in a different format which didn't have a problem with transclusion limits, e.g. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November). Starting with Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December the format changed and the template include size problems began. Rich Farmbrough fixed that month by splitting it in half on 30 September 2009‎, but quit there. Then on 18 February 2016 Pldx1 reported the template include size problem with the eight months January–August 2007. However, their solution implemented the next day wasn't ideal. Some of these such as Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January simply removed the problem from Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded without really fixing it. For other months, such as February 2007, this "fix" was simply reverted. You and SilverbackNet have then split some of these in a similar fashion as Rich. I see that the navigation works good for some, but not for others. Then I see from the edit history that I took a different approach with Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September on 28 July 2014 (I was working backwards from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September and I guess I got that far before I quit)‎. "Too many cooks" comes to mind... I'll work on thoroughly fixing them all from start to finish; this shouldn't be such a big deal to get right. Splitting them in half is the better approach, as it limits the lengthy page-load times for pages at the edge of the limit. Apparently after October 2008, the level of activity at DR fell to where the template include size was never a problem again. wbm1058 (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

When I try 2007 Jan yesterday, I cannot save edit due to some blacklist website and I think split to two pages is better to read and avoid exceeded size. As an admin, l think you can fix the problem. Hhkohh (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed I am running into the blacklist right now. I suppose it might be temporarily whitelisted, but I would need to look into how to do that. wbm1058 (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we can add <!--blacklist source--> or you try to temporarily override blacklist source, what do you think? Hhkohh (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a frustrating feature of the blacklist, even trying to save a page without adding a blacklisted item. Splitting is obviously worse. It encourages legitimate editors to try to find ways around the mechanism. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Why? Hhkohh (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Which bit? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC).

You guys are talking in code ;) I just found a couple examples of how I solved this in July 2014: diff and diff. Preexisting blacklisted items are "grandfathered". Nothing edits a page to remove them when they are added to the blacklist. You can even edit a page with a "grandfathered" item and keep it, as long as you don't edit the blacklisted URL itself. But as soon as you edit it to break the link like I did in those two examples, it loses its "grandfather" status. Those two edits cannot be reverted. So we have three options here. (1) Just leave a link for those pages and don't transclude them (2) Break the links as I did the last time I worked on this (3) Temporarily remove them from the blacklist. I think Rich's comment "encourages legitimate editors to try to find ways around the mechanism" implies we shouldn't take option 3. Beetstra probably has an opinion on this matter. wbm1058 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that's a blast from the past. I remember abandoning the project over problems with the blacklist, and while I requested exemptions a few times, they were always denied; in the end I just modified the site as in #2 until I ran out of steam. SilverbackNet ^talk 20:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I think, other than resolving the above issue with the failed transclusions of blacklisted pages, I am done with this short project. Interestingly, I was able to simply revert all the kludge edits I made on July 28, 2014 (selected months between Sept 2007 and Sept 2008). I suppose enough of the transcluded templates have been converted into Lua modules in the interim to render the fix no longer necessary. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Does anything require temporary whitelisting still. I think that, in the end, it would be best to disable the links by removing the preceding http://. Threre is generally no need for a working link in archived discussions, it does not change the meaning of the post, and to those really interested there is just a minor inconvenience to have to copy/paste the link. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 02:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done wbm1058 (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Heya... Just poking you to double check if I might have borked the bot or otherwise done something wrong (or right) when re-opening this previously-closed, now re-listed discussion. In theory (if handled like DRV) one would assume that we'd want the discussion to re-appear as "new" for the purposes of AfD date categorization, for example, but I dunno if that's the convention at MRV or if the bot otherwise knows how to handle it. Also, feel free to rewrite history/fix it if I did something wrong. :P --slakr^\ talk / 02:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Slakr, you figured it out. The RM template needs to come before the MR template, and swapping them did the trick. wbm1058 (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you create a new bot to take over DumbBOT, it seems down now Hhkohh (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The bot operator Tizio seems inactive and I have left a message on his talk page yesterday but there is no reply Hhkohh (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It's only been down for a couple days. Hhkohh, did you email User:Tizio as requested at the top of his user page? wbm1058 (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Not yet, can you help me email him, thanks? Hhkohh (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Use Special:Email. If you haven't set up email yourself, and don't care to disclose your email to other Wikipedia editors, I can email him for you. I use Yahoo! email (it's been my email "forever", since 1999) and set up an email alias for Wikipedia, which I can disable if it ever gets abused. It hasn't been. wbm1058 (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I just emailed Tizio. wbm1058 (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. The problem should be fixed now, and the bot resume regular operation in a couple of hours. Tizio 22:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I've been working on fruit cultivar pages lately, and I see that you deleted the page Black Republican cherry on 3 Jan 2018. From your remarks, it doesn't sound like it went through AfD and was deleted at the editor's request. Since this is a historically notable cultivar, I'd like to recreate the page, but figured I would contact you first to make sure there would be no problems with that. Thanks! PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, PohranicniStraze. That was just a redirect that I created #REDIRECT Bing cherry#History and then thought better of it and deleted it to avoid the circular link. There's nothing else in the deleted history. wbm1058 (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, just wanted to make sure! PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@PohranicniStraze: Nice! In case you're curious about my involvement here, I did some work on the disambiguation page Black Republican. wbm1058 (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Err please can you explain your various page moves and deletions/restorations here? GiantSnowman 07:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Someone had "hijacked" the article in September 2007 to make it about "a special teams and kicking/punting coach" at a college in Alabama. I split out the two edits about that topic to Robert Steiner (American football coach). That enabled me to do a history-merge of your cut-paste. I guess I didn't feel that the "hijack" justified keeping a split history there. This was part of my work to clear out the nine year backlog at Category:Possible cut-and-paste moves. wbm1058 (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There was an earlier fork but mostly not overlapping and where it did briefly overlap the same editor was editing both versions (adding infobox). So now all the history is on the same page. wbm1058 (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WMF Global Ban Policy. Since you had some involvement with the WMF Global Ban Policy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm really not quite sure what your pre-publicatiuon comment is supposed to mean. If you have anything to say you can say it to me directly. Otherwise, it's throwaway comments like this that have led me to shorten my temporary work on the magazine. and retire from Wikipedia at the end of the month. If I have misunderstood you, I apologise. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: there's no hidden message there. I'm unclear on whether that was intentional or not. If it was intended to be a joke, sorry, I think it falls flat. If it was a typo, then it was intended to give you the chance to remove the "0" before publication. Sorry, I suppose I could have emailed you, but you know most Wikipedians have a habit of conducting business in public (whether more communication should be done privately is an interesting question worth consideration, perhaps). Best wishes with whatever you choose to do in the future. wbm1058 (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, your joke fell flat and my sense of humour was exhausted a while back. You could of course have discretely corrected the typo without making more drama out of it for the trolls here and at the hates sites. It's what I would have done. Could you please consider removing your pre-publication comment? We don't want to start a precedent - or as I said, more drama. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I already blanked the page. In hindsight, I should have just fixed it as a typo, but at the time I wasn't sure whether I would get bitten for doing that, as while I thought it likely typo, I wasn't certain of that, so I decided to let you edit your own page. At the time I posted that, I didn't realize that the talk page would transclude to the article page itself. wbm1058 (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung, I apologize for how I handled that. wbm1058 (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

All's well that ends well. 😀 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Wishing Wbm1058 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Kpgjhpjm 01:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I've asked for assistance at WP:SHIPS about the correct spelling of the name of these ships as there is a dispute between RS. I believe that Pentstemon is correct, if that is agreed could I ask that you return the pages and redirects to as they were? Lyndaship (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#HMS Pentstemon or HMS Penstemon? – wbm1058 (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert - not sure how I made that mistake. Whoops! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hiya. Just a polite note, really - I tidied the redirect to go straight to Wadi Shis, so your dry riverbed point is maintained. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there - apologies for the late notice, but I wanted to make sure Ohio Wikimedians are aware. Proposal submissions and scholarship applications for WikiConference North America 2018 (Oct 18-21 in Columbus) are due today (August 15). If you have any projects or ideas to share through a presentation, roundtable, etc., I encourage you to make a submission. If you would be traveling from out of Columbus to attend the conference and need funding for a hotel + transportation, $500 scholarships are being offered (apply here).

We have also started an accommodations and transportation guide for visitors here - if you have information and recommendations to add, I encourage you to edit the page.

I know some folks have expressed interest in helping out with the event. We'll have public information very soon for opportunities to help with logistics and sponsorship, as well as a sign-up form for volunteering to help out at the conference itself. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to reach out to me. Thank you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@SuperHamster: I was curious to know how one gets appointed to the Scholarship committee. Though I obviously won't need one myself, it would be nice to have an impact on the decisions over who to grant one to, and thus who I would be more likely to meet at the conference. wbm1058 (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Good question. The committee is made of volunteers from our current organizer network. I do think it would be good to have local representation on the committee. If you're interested, could you send me an email introducing yourself and your wiki involvement, any past relevant experiences (attending conferences, receiving or administering grants and scholarships, etc.), and the type of individuals you think would be a good fit at the conference? I'll check with the current committee and see if they would like more help with the process. Thank you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Kevin from the Ohio Wikimedians and WikiConference North America here. As a quick reminder, WikiConference NA is happening Oct 18-21 at the Ohio State University Libraries. The schedule has been posted (more to come), and registration is open as well. If you'd like to attend, I encourage you to register as soon as possible - especially if you're interested in the pre-conference events, as they're filling up rather quickly. If you're on Facebook, we also have an attendees group for folks to coordinate travel, logistics, and ask questions. We also have a new volunteer coordinator, who is working on creating the on-boarding process for volunteers to help out at the event - you'll hear from me again when that's ready, if volunteering interests you. Any questions, feel free to reach me on my talk page. Thanks and hope to see you later this month! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done wbm1058 (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you give a reason for the move? -Inowen (nlfte) 01:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Inowen, I just reverted you because you didn't really give a reason for your move. Do you want to start an article on this topic? wbm1058 (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, at some point. It could be sooner rather than later I suppose. -Inowen (nlfte) 10:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You could start work on it at Draft:State of the World. When you have a viable article, you can ask me or another administrator to move it to the main space. You'll need to cite WP:reliable sources to support your content. wbm1058 (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

What is the required minimum for a "viable article" that should be developed by only a single editor? -Inowen (nlfte) 05:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

It has to make it past the criteria for speedy deletion. If you are writing about someone's work (a book, song, film, etc.) with that title, if it's not the clear primary topic for State of the World then the title will need disambiguation in some form. If you literally want to write about the state of the world, that strikes me as a difficult topic to write an encyclopedia article about (albeit an easier topic for an opinion piece or blog). If that's what you want to write about, you might consider narrowing the scope of your article to something more specific. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Drafts don't seem to be well formalized, and searching for drafts came up with nothing. And then why incubate articles in a draft space anyway, when it isolates their development to just one editor? And speedy deletion is a totally separate process, how do speed deletion patrollers review drafts any differently than new articles? The basic idea seems to be that an article is a legitimate topic or its not, and that quality is the second consideration, with deletion reserved for illegitimate topics and very short or inappopriate stubs.-Inowen (nlfte) 01:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen: Well, yes, you need to at minimum create a stub that shows it's a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia. Others should feel more free to help you get your creation started in draft space, as opposed to your own user space. Here is one guy's excellent report on the state of the world. I was feeling good after reading about the encouraging developments in wind-, solar- and battery-technologies. Then I read the rest of the report. wbm1058 (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It would be ambitious to write something like that here. -Inowen (nlfte) 04:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Why did you remove the cleanup template on Post-independence Burma, 1948–62? NoOneCaresTBH (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You must add a reason= parameter to this Cleanup template - replace it with {{Cleanup|Too much redlinks|date=September 2018|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template. I removed it because no reason was specified. Generally, you should use a more specific cleanup template, {{Cleanup}} should only be used when none of the other templates in Category:Cleanup templates applies. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@NoOneCaresTBH: Oh, I see that you did give the reason "Too much redlinks". Use Template:Cleanup red links, or just remove the red links yourself. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

There's a special template for that? Ok, thanks! That's very useful. NoOneCaresTBH (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello (User talk:Wbm1058)

I have to revert your edit, and adjust my last entry to what your intentions describe, without the additional fiction.

Fact: In contemporary Navigation there has been no use of the word Lodestar for hundreds of years. Difficult as it may often be to prove a negative, this one is a simple exception. Lodestar has not appeared in any current known works of navigational instruction, not in Bowditch (that goes back 200+years), Reeds, HO 249 (my bible for many years) or any non fiction or non ancient-history work of navigation you can find. At the risk of touting "original research" here, my 30+ years as a Master Mariner, 20 years instructing mariners and aviators, I can pass that along to you as gospel.

I see that in your brief torrent of edits, you changed the page from a disambiguation page, apparently a claimed forte, but the Talk:Lodestar page still reflects disambiguation categories.

You cite WP:DDD in your walk back of my edit, for "one blue link per line in disambiguation", that's fair, thank you, but your amendment, apart from being false, fails the "Keep descriptions short" requirement, also in WP:DDD.

Happy to learn from you some minutia of editing Wikipedia. I'm Happy to educate the rest. Happy to hear a well cited response, but please lets work together here for a professional factual encyclopedia. I don't do "barnstars" or self-accolades. That may have to change.

Ssaco (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ssaco: And now I've made some more related changes. What little I know of ship navigation is from reading about Gary Kildall, whose family ran a ship navigator's school in Seattle. His interest in developing a tool to automate the tedious calculations involved in that led to his becoming a pioneer in early personal computers. Now I suppose they've become largely dependent on GPS, and people have largely forgotten how to do the old calculations, as they've forgotten how to use slide rules. I suppose it's OK to just have the single line for Polaris as that links to pole star so the link to that article can be found there. See also the synonym Guiding Star. wbm1058 (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you intend to disambiguate both these terms? One still redirects to Polaris, now without a hatnote. Lithopsian (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I neglected to redirect that too. Done. wbm1058 (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Note that guide stars don't have to be actual stars: Laser_guide_star. Gah4 (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I see, there's a difference between a Guiding star and a Guide star. Added the latter to the "see also" section of the former. wbm1058 (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Wbm1058

I do not know for sure how you come by your edits, I'm guessing you aggregate google searches, but this does not always produce facts.

The net result of your torrent of edits has been corruptions of the actual meaning of Lodestar.

Lodestar is not a person, though it may be used as a descriptor or qualifier, or as an adjective, but that is self evident, and perhaps more pertinent to wiktionary.

The use of a lodestar for navigating anything but planet Earth is obviously conjecture. It is a terrestrial phenomenon with regard to the pole star, unless you have superhuman resources.

I do not enjoy reverting edits, it wastes my valuable time. Please be more judicious here. Your knowledge of wikipedia editing minutia is better than mine, but your approach to knowledge is atrocious. My objective is to improve encyclopedic value, I don't think you appreciate that. I dread to think what other subjects you may have affected negatively, but a senior editor may need consulting if I have to deal with much more.

Anyway, regards Ssaco (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Western Colorado University.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wbm1058. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Brad Fillatre, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: releasing music through Universal Music, even through a subsidiary, indicates significance. Thank you. SoWhy 12:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

User:RMCD bot keeps removing notices of the Kiev move discussion, which was improperly closed by a non-admin after only 8 hours and 6 !votes. It has of course been re-opened, but RMCD bot keeps removing the notices. It should not be removing notices of open RMs. Can you please fix it so it does not do this, and replace the notices of the RM on all relevant pages/lists/talkpages and ensure that the bot will not remove the notices again? Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Please DO NOT remove {{requested move/dated}} template while RM discussion is open or there is no admin closing this RM after 7 days and bot keeps removing it Hhkohh (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not remove that, Hhkohh. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: But you forgot to restore it when you reopened [4] Hhkohh (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, I did not remove it. Softlavender (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tim Nackashi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I assumed that Mr. Nackashi did a commercial for one of the firms associated with Hewlett and Packard (and not a commercial about horsepower), but I have no idea which as there is no reference provided by which I could verify that assertion. So yeah, an intentional link to disambiguation. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

That's why we have AWB. Only place this should use the s spelling is in quotes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I'm surprised that it took this long, but I've been reverted. I'm quite experienced with AWB amd JWB. My edit summary was intended to be a hint for you to help, since this work queue for me is your doing. I think I've done well over 100 now, but there's still 500 left. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I've been reverted again, by a different editor. wbm1058 (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Boy you opened a can of worms... quick, do you know which of these is correct?

• International Labor Organization
• International Labour Organisation
• International Labor Organisation

The answer is revealed at MOS:CONSISTENCY. And then there are the "typos" for Food and Agricultural Organisation and World Trade Organisation, etc. wbm1058 (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Look at their websites? Although I would suspect that International Labour Organization is the correct name, since that's where the article is located. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, if you want fewer reverts, I suggest you link to MOS:CONSISTENCY and explicitly mention the proper name bullet in your edit summaries. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Headbomb, right, I confirmed the name by checking the website before I updated the MOS with that example, and HERE is the edit summary I'm using now. If only I could get some WMF funding to do this work, I could post a job listing at Wikipedia:Reward board or Freelancer and we could pay them in insects. LOL – wbm1058 (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, WIXT, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

... that happened. Paul August ☎ 21:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Per this: Why not just use the primary sources (the text of the appropriate federal regulation, I presume) for what the "P" endorsement means, even if the secondary sources haven't? We're not bound to repeat their mistake; we could easily put it in a note. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Daniel, sure, I linked to this source. The secondary sources I've read just say the driver was over the limit for the number of passengers he could carry without the "P" (for passenger) endorsement. The primary source is just cited for the purpose of stating what the limit is: "15 or more". It's a New York State law, I presume, not a federal regulation. You could confirm by checking the New York State vehicle and traffic law (Scroll down to the "VAT" section). See Article 19 - Licensing of drivers. § 501-a. Definitions. 4. Commercial motor vehicle. (a) A motor vehicle or combination of vehicles designed or used to transport passengers or property: (iii) designed or used to transport fifteen or more passengers, in addition to the driver; – Not really a mistake, just an omission in the news reports. Wikipedia made the mistake by saying the limit was 10. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you please help edit this page to meet wiki guidlines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chandreshekar_Sonwane Rocketscience144 (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I see that you also asked for help with Draft:Chandrashekhar Ganpatrao Sonwane at User talk:Seraphimblade#Hi, and got some good answers there. You could start by reading the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you considering running for ARBCOM this year? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've considered it every year since the year I actually ran for the job. Usually I resist. My willpower to resist this year is currently waffling. wbm1058 (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Per your edit summary I have followed up with a TFD. Just FYI, the user in question was blocked for the very fact that they created templates like this one in the first place. This wasn't a "I'm going to CSD a page when the user can't defend themselves". The user's block was because they have been creating useless and disruptive templates. After multiple warnings, including being told by multiple admins not to make ANY edits in the Template namespace, they created yet another template. That was why I went straight to a CSD. The template is redundant and has no transclusions except on the documentation pages. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Barkeep49. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Disney's Animated Storybook: Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

For your reference, after unblocking himself Tanthalas then blocked me. The desysop had as much to do with the second action as the first. Prodego ^talk 03:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Wbm - I apologize for adding extra work to your already highly taxed schedule but if you would be so kind as to explain what steps I should have taken to avoid it regarding the redirects to Bucking horse, I will be happy to do so in the future. Thank you for all the work you do in the background!! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: I'm clearing Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review. When you changed the target of the Broncho redirect, you should have moved the hatnote {{Redirect|Broncho}} to the new target: remove it from Bronco and add it to Bucking horse. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Got it! Adding it to my notes. Thank you. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop reverting and re-adding Chartmasters.org. It has been deemed a gross, unreliable website per WP:RSN. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 23:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Please stop using rollback where inappropriate, and start using edit summaries to explain yourself. Your visit to my talk page would have been unnecessary if you had bothered to use edit summaries. Please take care to use your rollback rights in a responsible manner, thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Wbm1058, I was just about to do that in the edit summary that my rollback was not supposed to be that, instead I was going to use my Twinkle. My apologies since I'm on phone. Second time when I clicked it I went into a edit conflict with you and it again did not allow me to add the summary. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 23:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think your revert is probably fine, but aren't red links encouraged in a number of places by wp:redlink? I haven't read the policy for a while... Airbornemihir (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Airbornemihir: per WP:REDDEAL, " Links in any of the various {{About}} and {{Otheruses}} hatnotes, in {{Main}}, {{Details}}, {{Further}}, and {{Seealso}} notes, as well as in "See also" sections, are meant to serve a navigational purpose. Red links are useless in these contexts; if possible they should be replaced by a functioning link, or else be removed." – wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Election in absentia. Since you had some involvement with the Election in absentia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

1. Liga 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) & Liga I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks Hhkohh (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done – wbm1058 (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wbm1058,

Your recent BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot1058 5) has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Task 5, looks like the bot is removing long comments from pages that were not over 800 bytes before removal. See edit histories at Trzy zimy, Bursting pressure, and Kroniki. 66.87.149.161 (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

So once in a category, always in that category, it seems. The "job queue" has failed us.

• Trzy zimy should have come out of long-short-page status when its AFD closed as keep on 28 July 2018
• Bursting pressure should have come out of long-short-page status when superfluous text was removed from that Wiktionary redirect on 23 July 2018
• Kroniki should have come out of long-short-page status when its AFD closed as keep on 28 July 2018

What these have in common is end-of-July timing, but that could just be coincidental. wbm1058 (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll just check the strlen and simply do a null edit to clear the page from the category if the length is shorter than the category claims it is. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Curiously enough, after checking for this with the rest of the members of these long-short-page categories, my bot didn't find any more like the three you found. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

re: Janik - I will stub it :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

In 2016, you deleted That's Not Me (disambiguation) because disambiguation was not needed. Since that time, That's Not Me (film) has been added to That's Not Me and That's Not Me (Skepta song), and a handful of DABMENTIONs. I would like to recreate this disambiguation page but thought that I would run it by you first. Leschnei (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Leschnei: I restored it. I'm not sure the Beach Boys album cut should be the primary topic. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with you about the Beach Boys song. Leschnei (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done – wbm1058 (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wbm1058, I see the redirects zero, one, two target the number articles (the primary topic of the respective numbers 0 1 2). I was surprised that three up until at least nine redirect to their dabs, changed fairly recently by you. Is there any discussion? A quick look finds Talk:Zero where the same change of target to the dab was reverted, and one was once changed to target the dab, but that didn't stick long. I think they were better before. Widefox; talk 19:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Widefox, this was the last step of a long process that was initiated with the consensus to make the numbers 1–10 primary topics over the years (User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 5#Years and numbers (AD) 1–100). Though I was bold in making the decision to redirect these to the disambiguation, this configuration has been stable for thirteen months and you're the first to ask me about it. I worked down from twenty to three, and I can't recall anyone asking me to discuss it along the way. There are two reasons for changing the target of these number redirects:

• these are often WP:OVERLINKed everyday words
• they also often should be disambiguated as these numbers are used as proper-name titles for films, songs, etc.

Work to address these two issues is done in a much more timely manner when they redirect to the disambiguation rather than the number articles.

I paused at three and never got around to doing zero, one and two. I also didn't do the numbers above twenty.

So I will take some time to do a few of those now.

• Disambiguate Thirty One (Jana Kramer album) (unaddressed since September 2016)
• Overlink to two
• Disambiguate Two
• Overlink to 2
• Overlink to two

These links persist for a long time when the redirect is to the number; checking a few "what links here" to the numbers that redirect to disambiguation I find no links to mainspace. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how redirecting to the dab is useful for finding those overlinks. In fact, I suppose my surprise was because I was linking using the zero and one redirects in Binary number for clarity instead of the numerals (which are mentioned rather than used, so need marking up as such, if you're following my tortured explanation). But, I was more thinking of searching rather than linking. Reevaluating that now, I guess searchers would use the number rather than the word. I still think the primary topic for the words would be the number articles, but I'm guessing as you say this isn't a big concern. Widefox; talk 21:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Wbm1058, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Hhkohh (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks for uploading File:SACO Hardware logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up! Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

About my {{SimpleNuclide}} merge-by-Redirect edit you reverted [5] (es: "premature; 62 transclusions yet").

1. I have merged because the error category was empty. The cat populating check is this: does the template call use |Link= (as first unnamed parameter)? Because, this parameter use is the only difference between old {{SimpleNuclide}} and new {{SimpleNuclide2}} (new=2009 BTW). So, once this category is empty, there is no problem merging the templates.
2. That there are 62 transclusions does not prohibit the merge by Redirect. Because: none of these uses the problematic |Link= parameter. So these transclusions do work as intended, before & after merge.
3. Here [6] you write in the es: "I've run into a couple of pages that are transcluding {{error}}". Could you be specific? I've seen these too indeed: only archive pages etcetera that we are not supposed to edit (I could not edit out the code error). Archives can turn into this error mode, because we cannot be held hostage by old frozen pages -- that would stop development.

So with this, do you still see objections to that merge? -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

DePiep, turns out there were only two I found in mainspace; the others are in other namespaces... I did three of them. So right, all good now. wbm1058 (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make the edits again then. (Your call was to the point though, I should have made a check on those 62). -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Just an FYI, List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes is now broken as the Simpsons was. I'm not looking forward to fixing this one. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: also List of Doctors episodes, List of Kalyeserye episodes and List of The Nature of Things episodes. wbm1058 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• List of Doctors episodes has been fixed, by directly invoking the modules. Now it fits comfortably: 1,413,495 / 2,097,152 bytes – wbm1058 (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes also fixed and fitting with room to spare: 1,555,146 / 2,097,152 bytes – wbm1058 (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• List of Kalyeserye episodes fixed too: 1,809,572 / 2,097,152 bytes – wbm1058 (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• List of The Nature of Things episodes fixed. 1,566,848 / 2,097,152 bytes. This one and Kalyeserye don't have individual season pages, so there was just one page to edit with JWB. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• List of Ang Probinsyano episodes fixed. Just slipped inside the limit: 2,051,280 / 2,097,152 bytes – wbm1058 (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you happen to check the two Simpsons episodes list articles before you changed the season articles to see what the final effect on the size was? I'm just curious. I haven't got JWB installed, otherwise I'd try it at the season articles linked from List of Casualty episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You're quite the night owl (or is it early bird?) ... 1–20 is 1,536,000 and 21–30 is 996,058 ... "before" for 1–20 was 1,976,531 – so a reduction of 440,500. Hard to say whether they'll all fit on one page again, but I think there's a good chance they will. Won't know for sure without trying. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I tend to edit at all hours because I'm the primary carer for my disabled wife. Editing Wikipedia kills time. :(

That's a fairly significant change for such a simple fix. I might try fixing the Casualty episode article since that's at RM at the moment. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I see that the syntax in {{episode list/sublist}} was changed. That makes managing these splits a lot easier than it was the last time I engineered one. Less things that need to be simultaneously changed. I found that I was four series short of having enough include-bytes to make a full List of Casualty episodes. But there's room for all of the List of Holby City episodes (1,911,556 / 2,097,152 bytes), albeit not much headroom for future expansion without finding further efficiencies. We'll see what effect this has on the requested move there. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

So now we can fit all but the first three seasons of Simpsons... we've probably stretched this as far as we can, the article is long enough that splitting it kind of makes sense from the readers' standpoint as well as the technical standpoint. I'm content with the status quo there. There will be a small number of long-running series where splitting them makes sense. wbm1058 (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

First ten seasons of Survivor don't survive ; wbm1058 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparently we can track split episode-lists by watching Pages that transclude Template:List has been split. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Five episode lists have been split: {{List has been split}}

• List of The Simpsons episodes
  • List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20)
• List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) episodes
  • List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) episodes (seasons 1–20)
• List of Saturday Night Live episodes
  • List of Saturday Night Live episodes (seasons 1–30)
• List of Casualty episodes
  • List of Casualty episodes*
• List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)
  • List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989)

The last one, Doctor Who, has a natural splitting point. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The RM for List of Casualty episodes* has closed with the closer moving List of Casualty episodes to List of Casualty episodes (series 21–present) as well. That decision appears to have been made without consensus. The RM discussion was only for a move of List of Casualty episodes* to List of Casualty episodes (series 1-20). The proposal to move List of Casualty episodes was made by one editor and opposed by me. No other editors commented on this part of the proposal so I don't see any consensus to move List of Casualty episodes. Do you agree with that? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

On a separate, but related note, if they're going to name articles like this, there's really no need for any of the efforts that we've made. The articles should be separate and all out of scope content should really be removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

There's a growing [7] mountain of redirects based on totally arbitrary series ranges. This is the kind of thing that the generic titles were intended to avoid. Now List of Casualty episodes (series 1–3) redirects to List of Casualty episodes (series 21–present), thanks to the work of a double-redirect fixing bot. Why don't we wait to see how long it takes for the hardliners (who claim they'd notice and immediately revert me if I moved to a title with a non-printing character) to notice this and fix it themselves. As long as List of Casualty episodes redirects to the "–present" article, making that the primary topic for the generic title, I'm content with accepting this is the consensus choice for handling episode list splits; it's if or when List of Casualty episodes becomes a pseudo-disambiguation page that consensus falls apart. I see the point that "series overview" is a distinct background topic with an acceptable wider scope. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

One of the problems we have in the TV project is that we have a relatively small but vocal group who are best described as "inconsistent". I think they'll actually be happy to live with List of Casualty episodes now being a redirect despite the comments in this discussion about a similar situation. I agree that the series overview table has a wider scope but this is only true in a "List of <Foo> episodes" article, not at subpages created as part of a split. I'm sure that they'll also be happy with now having content from List of Casualty episodes (series 21–present) being transcluded to List of Casualty episodes (series 1–20), which is backwards, because they don't really understand it. As I've written at User talk:Flooded with them hundreds#List of Casualty episodes the move of List of Casualty episodes is inconsistent with the other programs mentioned - I really don't think the closer actually looked at the articles before deciding to move. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Flooded did round-robin swap to the base title minutes after the above post was made. wbm1058 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Noting how the discussion at Template talk:Japanese episode list#Merged is reminiscent of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 14#Re-examination of approval - PrimeBOT 15 because of one participant Who rushes changes into implementation too quickly. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

So Template:Japanese episode list and friends were finally deleted this month. Should make for easier and more consistent maintenance. The episode list issues all seem to have stabilized, so I'll archive this now. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and the happiest of New Year's to you and yours. It's Poppy!. Good to have met you on the rocky Wikipedia road. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Randy Kryn, Happy New Year to you too! I saw you over at Ultima Thule. The video from that and the Rose Bowl should make for an interesting day. Since you're about the _least_ ultima Thule in my wiki-world, we should get together for another meetup soon. Best, wbm1058 (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, and will email this week. Also waiting for the Ultima Thule results, which are being announced right now, in a 10 a.m. Eastern press conference, so will check sites for updates (edit:Now I see it's a 3 p.m. press conference). Keep the lasagna flying, as RAW would often say. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help -- and your patience, in the past. Such as , e.g., circa << "18:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)" >> ... (and iirc a few other replies, before and after that) ... at Talk:MediaWiki ... in a section there called [something like] << 'Is there still some "HOPE" for ... (this certain idea about improving "What links here") -- ? --' >>.

I have a new one which (big surprise) might "also" have been initially asked / "posted" in a clumsy place (/slash "the wrong place").

The new question can be seen at Talk:Jordin_Sparks in a section called [[Talk:Jordin_Sparks#Confusing_mixup_regarding_footnote_number_"[1]"]] (well, shoot, the double-square-brackets "linkifier" will not take that! Why? I do not know; ... Oh well ...) it does have a sub-section called Talk:Jordin_Sparks#Expert_advice_needed_here?_(I_think_so...)) [there! that link worked OK!];

One of the main questions is in the sub-section "Talk:Jordin_Sparks#Is_this_a_BUG?"; and even if that section were to get archived, or something ... (which iirc could turn the above useful hyperlink[s] into instances of "dead link"-type disappointment), still ... the URL of the DIFF listing would still work OK! [right?] ("at least", to aid one in finding the archived section).

My apologies if this is the wrong place (or the wrong way) to have asked where to post that question.

Any advice would be appreciated. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mike, thanks for the reminder of our discussion from July. I'm making Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken section anchors more of a priority; that's been neglected for too long.

I've resonded to your question about the Jordin Sparks bio at Talk:Jordin Sparks § Expert advice needed here? (I think so...) – wbm1058 (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)