Jump to content

User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Edits to Bonus Army

I noticed that you've edited this article in the past. It's been receiving a lot of editing attention since the January 6th Insurrection/Storming at the US Capitol, some good, some bad. I'm sure it will continue to be on a lot of people's radar with Trump's impeachment and the ongoing unrest in the Unites States. I've put in a request for any kind of temporary protection at RPP but there's quite a backlog over there so if you could maybe take a look... greatly appreciated, etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I responded there. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Full rigged ship

Hi Wbm1058! I see you reverted my changes to add {{R from misspelling}} to the redirect Full rigged ship. I made that edit based on Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 81#Full rigged ship by Chris the speller. GoingBatty (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: re: "The bot will not make changes that are not visible to the reader (e.g. will not change [[Full rigged ship|full-rigged]])."
That doesn't clear the page from Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings, which doesn't care whether the link is visible to the reader or not. wbm1058 (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the bot doesn't fix all instances of Full rigged ship. The point I was trying to make was that Chris the speller indicated that "Full rigged ship" was a misspelling "according to well-known dictionaries and common understanding of compound modifiers". GoingBatty (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, I was not aware of the discussion and your bot request. But, if consensus is to tag this as a misspelling for the Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings patrol to fix, then the consensus also allows the necessary "cosmetic edits" to be made to get the redirect off of that report. wbm1058 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 Fixed manually - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with that, GoingBatty! wbm1058 (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts on Douglas Murray (politician)?

From what I can tell, the decision was to delete. Aren't you lucky you have the tools to do just that, unless there's an issue? Atsme 💬 📧 19:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Atsme. The consensus was to delete David Burke. Right, it's odd we had these biographies while at the same time resisting inclusion of Theresa Greenfield. You could just propose Douglas Murray for deletion; that doesn't qualify for a speedy. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

::I missed that...two different people using the same article. Was there a move that I missed? How did that happen? Atsme 💬 📧 19:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Nevermind, I see what happened. 20:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • PS: WP:GNG has requirements, and Jimbo's persuasion during the campaign is why Greenfield has an article. We typically don't create articles about losing candidates because of WP:10YT. She only had 4,200 pageviews and in another year, will be forgotten. Liken it to handing out blue ribbons to everyone just because they showed up. Atsme 💬 📧 20:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

"Facist" redirect

To keep this template call out of the section title: Facist

At first glance, you probably meant to change the parameter on {{R from misspelling}} rather than {{R avoided double redirect}}.

However, according to the edit summary provided by @Damian Yerrick: when retargeting Facist: It's a misspelling for both "Fascist" and "Face-ist", both of which have an article, so point at disambiguation page

Emphasis mine; similarly for Facism, retargeted by the same user to the same target, with the corresponding summary just replacing -ist with -ism.

If you think this is an implausible justification for the redirects, they should probably be reverted to a previous target. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

SoledadKabocha, by reverting me, you have put Facism back onto the Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings report. Facist links to Facism, which has been tagged as a misspelling. "This is a redirect from an alternative title for Facism" implies that Facism is a correct title so the templates are contradicting each other. Frankly my mind spins when I try to understand what these templates are trying to say or do and what their purpose is here. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for not checking the database report first. The best course of action I can come up with is to just remove {{R avoided double redirect}} from this particular redirect (ED: which I see you have already done). If you want to codify as a guideline that {{R avoided double redirect}} should not be used for misspellings, that is a discussion for elsewhere (which I will not be pursuing for several days at least). --SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

RSN / RfC: Sherdog.com Closure Mess

Hello, an uninvolved editor named Buidhe closed Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#RfC:_Sherdog.com some time ago with the consensus for option 2 but somehow he used the explanation for option 3 in this [1]. That caused some confusion and then some editors in favour of option 1 complained about it here at User_talk:Buidhe/Archive_12#RFC_closure. Then Buidhe changed his closure 2 weeks later in this [2], again, and disregarded votes. He gave the explanation for why he changed the closure and disregarded votes 2 weeks later here at the complaint section User_talk:Buidhe/Archive_12#RFC_closure again. Apperantly he thought 5 options were confusing for editors who voted in the RfC and other editors perhaps voted for wrong options without knowing. So he didn't come to any straightforward conclusion and in the end the closure has become a mess that didn't close anything or reflect the consensus outcome of the RfC (or anything at all for one option or the other) although it was a pretty easy and short one with a rather clear rough consensus.

It would be far better if an experienced administrator like you closed the RfC once and for all, and erase this mess the closing editor caused because it affects a lot of articles in the Wiki and cause edit wars that rely on that RfC. Thanks in advance.78.190.169.27 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, you've edited here using two different IP addresses, and I see User talk:Eddie891#RSN / RfC: Sherdog.com Closure Mess and User talk:WOSlinker#RSN / RfC: Sherdog.com Closure Mess. Can you imagine how I would feel if I spent an hour or more reading through the multiple discussions and composing my response only to find myself in an edit conflict with another admin because you had not bothered to inform me about all the editors who you were shopping for a review of the previous closes?
Tell me what you think the "rather clear rough consensus" is. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
See Sherdog and Talk:Sherdog#How reliable is Sherdog really? From the article lead, "The site... provides MMA related content for ESPN.com". So, it seems that ESPN considers it to be reliable; if we doubt the reliability of this site that could mean we doubt the reliability of ESPN as well, by extension. Perhaps at one time it was self-published by Jeff Sherwood, but, also per the article, "Jeff Sherwood and his namesake website parted ways". – wbm1058 (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're not overly busy...

Hi, wbm1058! Will you please take a look at this request for PP? Can you restore the redirect before you PP it? I explained the situation in my request at PP Also, can you revert the IP's edit in the lead of CBS Corporation and protect that page, too? I thought about a possible AfD for the 1997 article since it doesn't warrant being a standalone article, and the transaction is already mentioned in the lead of the main article. Please ping me when you respond. Atsme 💬 📧 23:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll be brief

Moving that stub to draft space was not a good idea, and neither was alleging that I did not AGF and was edit warring with that IP. NPP/AfC reviewers need admin support, not resistance, and above all, admins should not get involved in content issues. I did my homework which is expected of seasoned NPP/AfC reviewers, and I also have the user right to MOVE articles to draft space but chose not to for a valid reason. An admin should be focused on the behavior, not the content when an editor requests PP, and they certainly should not speculate on whether the article passes GNG, or should/should not be a redirect - that's what NPP reviewers are trusted to do, and I was doing my job. Right now, NPP has a backlog of over 2500+ redirects. I'd much rather waste my time well. Atsme 💬 📧 12:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I did something only admins can do – I retained the longstanding page history while only splitting the new content to Draft:CBS Corporation (1997). As to whether a holding company for one of the major American broadcast networks passes the general notability guideline, c'mon now. I see you just added comments at the top of the draft, which is good Now the ball is back in IP court where they should have the opportunity to explain why they feel the current article configuration is inadequate. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you undelete Talk:27th New York Infantry Regiment?

This is the recently moved talk page for the recently moved article. Was it malformed or blank? I would have expected project banners already applied. Is there something obvious I'm missing? Thanks for deleting the talk page on the newly created redirect. We appreciate your mop. BusterD (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi BusterD, I deleted it because it was a redirect to Talk:27th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment (1873), which is the talk page for a different article. A new article was created on 7 October 2012, but no corresponding talk page was created for that article, so you can create it now. Sometimes I just do that, but this time I didn't. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Will do. That 1873 unit seems very strange and it's not on the category tree for Union regiments, though the infobox claims ACW experience. For whatever reason, I appreciate your bringing it to my attention. BusterD (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea

You moved the article before the discussion on the talk page was finished... Maybe that's not wise?--Ruling party (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ruling party: What's not wise is having two competing discussions about moving the same page open simultaneously. You forced my hand by starting the new discussion. Had you not done that, the original discussion could have possibly continued for a while longer. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
But you closed that discussion earlier. How can you reopen a discussion? --Ruling party (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Ruling party, at the time of my first close ("no consensus") there had been a content split, so there were two separate articles at both titles Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea and General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea. We can't move an article over the top of another article. My close seems to have triggered further editing activity as the content split was reverted, and when I saw that, I reverted my close. Subsequently I did see a consensus forming, so I closed it again, this time moving the page. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Omnitheism

Why did you protect that page in 2016? It was and always has been a Wiktionary soft redirect, and does not need sourcing. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 19:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:Omnitheism. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Your analysis section at the evidence page for RexxS

The Arbitration Committee has asked that analysis be kept to around 500 words. Your analysis over multiple sections is over 1,040 words. Please edit your sections to focus on the most relevant analysis. If you wish to submit over-length analysis, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. I understand that this is late in the day, but if you could shorten before the deadline that would be appreciated. Concise analysis is more useful for the committee in making its decision. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your partial trimming in the short notice. In light of the short notice that has been given, you will be allowed to edit the evidence page for 24 hours past the time the phase closes to only trim your analysis sections. Please only trim or remove what you have already written past the closure of the phase, and therefore not add further analysis. Once you are under the word limit, you can then leave the analysis as is. If you are still significantly above the limit of 500 words in around 24 hours, your analysis may be trimmed to the limit for you. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits to the evidence page after the evidence phase closed

Your last three edits [3] to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence were made after the evidence phase was closed. The clerks will probably revert these edits but it would be better if you do that yourself and make a comment at the talk page instead. Nsk92 (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Nsk92, see the above section. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see, interesting, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

never saw it

re: [4] comment: Not sure why I never got this ping, and just noticed this now. - but anyway, thank you for responding. — Ched (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Birth dates in biographies and California Law AB-1687

Here's an interesting news item: California Enacts Law Requiring IMDb to Remove Actor Ages on Request

I participated in an interesting conversation about this here. I'd be interested in hearing from others who are interested in this. What do you think? wbm1058 (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of actors and birth dates... Can we remove the birth date from Vanessa Ferlito's page or lock it? Plenty of public sources cite 1977 yet someone (probably her PR) keeps reverting it back to 1980. IMDB doesn't fall in line. Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.208.185 (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Right, thanks. I don't like to see stuff I archived as resolved keep coming back as an issue. I see the TV Guide bio doesn't have a birth date anymore, while in my archive I reported that it did. I think pending changes protection is in order, as relying on watchlisting isn't giving us timely reversions. wbm1058 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

NFL Draft/draft article names and link

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 23#Cleanup of "List of XYZ Wildcats in the NFL Draft|draft" article naming convention

Based on your recent edits, this Talk section may interest you. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, UW Dawgs. I briefly got the linked miscapitalizations report down to under 100 pages last April 21 and was feeling good about that accomplishment when just nine days later that list got bombed with these NFL draft lists. That was deflating. Tiring of waiting for someone else to resolve this, I finally got around to it. I've been aware that @Dicklyon: was responsible for this but I hadn't seen that he had filed a move review on the matter back in July 2016, which makes his behavior even worse.
There is no right or wrong answer here; I see that the NFL fan editors responsible for most of the content generally favor making it a proper name while the more meta style-focused editors favor making it a generic name. I'm content with either. But this is not a case where the other form should be declared flat-out incorrect, so I have replaced Dick's {{R from incorrect capitalization}} tags with {{R from other capitalization}} tags.
I don't mind if some of these are moved, but whoever moves them should update the templates that link to them too. Mass-moves should get a consensus first. Beware of the Cleveland Dawgs, they are getting restless and may block editors who commit further fouls! wbm1058 (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me, but what are you saying I did wrong? And why is there no right answer here? Don't sources make it clear, per the guidelines in MOS:CAPS, that "draft" in these contexts should not be considered to be part of a proper name? That 2016 RM was a sham, as was the move review. Maybe it's time for a big RFC to sort this out. Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Dick, you should not start boldly making a large series of potentially controversial moves without obtaining a consensus for that first. The July 2016 move review shows that you knew your moves were controversial. MOS:SPORTCAPS says "Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources: WPA World Nine-ball Championship, Tour de France, Americas Cup. Generic usage is not: a three-time world champion, international tournaments." The top of that page also says "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I saw your Ngram evidence, but others questioned the context of the usage.
I advise starting an RfC at WT:WikiProject American football and posting a notice of that discussion on WT:MOS. Consider proposing a change in the title structure that more obviously uses the term "draft" in a generic sense, e.g.: List of Ohio State Buckeyes in the NFL draft → List of Ohio State Buckeyes drafted by the NFL. An argument can be made that there is no single event called (the) "NFL Draft" but rather there is a series of NFL drafts, e.g. the 2019 NFL Draft, the 2020 NFL Draft, etc. Looking specifically at the Buckeyes drafted in 2011, "2011 NFL draft selections" is a generic term which means all Buckeyes drafted in calendar year 2011, which includes those drafted in the 2011 NFL Draft and the 2011 NFL Supplemental Draft. However the 2011 "supplemental" selection counts as a 2012 pick, which complicates the terminology. See List of NFL supplemental draft picks. An analogy: "presidents of the United States" ≡ "NFL drafts"; "President Biden" ≡ "2020 NFL Draft". – wbm1058 (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Um ... is "draft" here part of a proper name? I don't think so. Like "NFL wins and losses". Tony (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • The argument is that the NFL Draft is an event, which like the Super Bowl, another event, is capitalized. The NFL really hypes up this event; it's even televised live. My talk isn't really the place to argue the matter though. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

RM for Autocephaly

I have started a RM for Autocephaly, please come and give your feedback here. Veverve (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a topic I know much about – I suppose this request for feedback was made because I was fixing a disambiguation mess at Orthodox Church (see Talk:Orthodox Church#Disambiguation). There are still over 1100 links to that page, but it seems I've successfully orchestrated the stabilization of that page as a "set index" – a hybrid form that straddles between being a disambiguation page and a broad-concept article. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

"Cake Tin" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cake Tin. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 5#Cake Tin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"TWD" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect TWD. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#TWD until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UserTwoSix (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

You should have an infobox for Bobby Gaylor.Arek333 (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Done, I added a bare-bones infobox as there's not a lot of material to work with there. wbm1058 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Rcat shell

Sorry about that; I had meant to add the other rcat (alternate capitalization) to the shell instead. jp×g 02:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

One-child policy in China

Thanks for the message on my talk page, and sorry about the confusion. I intended to fix a misspelling of "Chicago" and to correct two references to DOIs and one URL that were rendered incorrectly; I didn't intend to revert anyone else's changes or edits--I apologize if I did so unintentionally. It looks like everything has been sorted out now. Oaxacanalia (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

However did you escape...

...knowing about Crossfire Hurricane? The entire right-wing media bubble has obsessed over it for years, and the mainstream and left-wing media are not far behind. I envy you! Guy (help! - typo?) 18:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy, I knew they were investigating Trump & Russia, but I didn't know it had a Code Name. I'm familiar with the military using code names (e.g. Operation Desert Storm, can you believe it's already been 30 years!) but not the FBI. I suppose because they're supposed to be secret code names. Hmm, Midyear Exam, which I just learned of from that New York Times piece about FBI code names, is still a red link! – wbm1058 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Armenian Genoicde

Hi wbm1058, I'm guessing you want to engage on the capitalization topic, since you pinged me, but you're right that it's probably outside the scope of the section where you posted. My talk, your talk, or the RfC section would all be appropriate. Let me know! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: actually, I don't enjoy engaging on this topic. To give you more of an idea of where I'm coming from, look at the page history of Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations which I am virtually single-handedly responsible for taming (well, it hasn't been tamed yet, but I've made progress). Also § NFL Draft/draft article names and link above, where the efforts of the "MOS mob" were successfully repelled. National Football League Draft is still a proper name. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
No worries then! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pages linking to the Education Program namespace

A tag has been placed on Category:Pages linking to the Education Program namespace indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 13:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

See Template talk:Course assignment#Links to education program. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

U.S. Highway redirect talk pages

@Wbm1058: why did you redirect the talk pages of some of the U.S. special routes to that of the list articles? For example, you redirected Talk:U.S. Route 15 Alternate (Chapel Hill, North Carolina) to Talk:Special routes of U.S. Route 15. The talk pages of redirects such as these are supposed to be assessed just like regular articles. Please, ping me for replies. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Morriswa: U.S. Route 15 Alternate (Chapel Hill, North Carolina) redirects to Special routes of U.S. Route 15 so its talk page should as well. I don't really see the point in maintaining the page for potential discussions about the target of the redirect.
I reverted myself on Talk:U.S. Route 15 Alternate (Chapel Hill, North Carolina). See the red error message? "Page is not a redirect, misplaced Template:R from move". That's what caught my attention, and I won't be happy until it's gone.
You shouldn't usurp a redirect by placing project tags above it. If you insist on tagging it, then remove the redirect. wbm1058 (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: I know these are redirects, but you really should take this issue up with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads to get a project consensus about this. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Morriswa (Charlotte Allison), look, this isn't some complex matter that should need a big group discussion. This edit you just made is all I was asking for. If you remove the redirect when you place the project tags, then I won't notice and won't care. I don't really see any point in doing that and can think of a lot of more important and productive things an editor could be working on, in my opinion, but OK. wbm1058 (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Your close at Frente de Todos

Hi. You reverted my move closure at Talk:Frente de Todos (2019 coalition), and then closed it yourself. I've gone over WP:RMNAC and I don't see anything that supports your actions. There is this: If an administrator notices a clearly improper move closure, they should revert the closure and re-open the discussion., but it doesn't apply here in two ways:

  • My closure wasn't clearly improper; it was supported by consensus and not against any policy or guideline.
  • You did not revert the closure and re-open the discussion; instead, you immediately re-closed, based on what seems to be a non-policy-based supervote (there is no policy that we should follow any other project, including eswiki, with regards to anything at all).

So I would like to ask you to either respect my closure, or, if you can demonstrate that my closure was in fact clearly improper, to re-open the discussion. Unless I'm somehow wrong about all of this, then just explain why. Thanks! Lennart97 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was too thin (insufficient participation) to simply close it. I disambiguated the links and found one that would have been targeting the wrong article. The 1996 coalition lasted for about a decade so I don't see the basis for making the new coalition the primary topic as it hasn't been in existence that long yet. I'd be more inclined if Spanish Wikipedia had a primary topic at es:Frente de Todos, but it doesn't. Your closure was simply "moved" without further explanation of your closing rationale. If you disagree with my rationale, I can reopen and relist, but I'm trying to short-circuit some bureaucracy here. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
"Insufficient participation" doesn't hold. Per the closing instructions, No minimum participation is required for requested moves. If no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy. No one objected, and the move did not conflict with any conventions, guidelines or policy. In fact, a primary topic can be established almost by pageviews alone ([5]), with the 2019 coalition consistenly getting hundreds of views per day over the past 1,5 year, and the 1996 coalition consistenly getting 0, 1 or 2 - and that's on top of the 1996 coalition being regional and defunct. I can only conclude that my closure was not improper (let alone clearly improper) and should be restored. Lennart97 (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, the page views make a convincing case, as does the argument that the old alliance was of some minor province vs. the new one is a national party, which I admit having glossed over at first. Transitioning from one primary topic to another is tricky; these should at least go through a "disambiguation step" as part of the transition, which I've taken care of. wbm1058 (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate it. Lennart97 (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

4 min youtube

You might find this quite LOLish. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Solution

I see that you are on a campaign to remove the use of "solution" in the sense of "an answer to a problem ". Clearly, this is a legitimate meaning of the word. You even used this meaning yourself, multiple times, on this talk page. What's up? Leotohill (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Oh, crap, sorry, my bad. I see that you are just addressing overlink. Ignore me. Leotohill (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Leotohill, most of those links would be OK if they linked to Solution selling rather than the article about homogeneous mixtures composed of two or more substances, one being dissolved in the other. But the word is an everyday word which is well-understood when used in this context. If I was on a campaign I'd have tagged them all with {{Buzzword inline}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
This 09:50, 14 November 2014 failed attempt to "tone down promotional material" was nicely recovered by this 10:41, 12 January 2017 edit. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:On Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and nothing else. Comments left by new page reviewers:
This article contains what are either chemistry terms or marketing buzzwords, and Wikipedia only likes to see the first one in articles.
This article uses the word "solutions" a lot, an indication that the article is not written from a neutral point of view.

Pages that link to "Solution selling" in article-space wbm1058 (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with Wikipedia:On Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and nothing else at all, and just added comments on its talk page. AFAICT you don't agree with it either. Leotohill (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mean as custard: Congrats on winning Editor of the Week earlier this month. I'm not keen on spoiling the celebration on your talk, hence pinging you here. Please read from the start of this section to see what I've been working on. After doing that a while, I noticed that many of my edits were cleaning up after you. I found that another editor complained about your multiple links (DIFF) which is counter to MOS:REPEATLINK. Also, are you really not aware that on Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and not things to solve problems? It's hard for me not to think that you were disrupting articles to make a point. If so, your point wasn't taken as there were still hundreds of mislinks to the wrong meaning of "solution". I've mostly removed the links as WP:OVERLINKs to an everyday, well-understood word when used in that context. You would have made your point less disruptively by piping the links to [[solution selling|solution]]. I'm hoping this is all water under the bridge and that you aren't making this sort of edit anymore. And also, thanks for what I think is your generally good work otherwise in cleaning up after promotional edits. I had been seriously considering making the move suggested at Talk:Solution#Rename this article to Solution (chemistry) as needed to combat all these mislinks by what I thought were clueless drive-by promotional editors, but now that I see who's responsible for a lot of them I'm having second thoughts about the need to pull chemistry off of primary topic status. wbm1058 (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Jürgen Ehlers has been a featured article since 2013 yet had this mislink since 24 May 2008, until I just removed it today. wbm1058 (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Affine focal set had a mislink since its 17 August 2008 creation, until I just now disambiguated it: Solution (mathematics). – wbm1058 (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

1970s Dutch rock band – Solution (band). – wbm1058 (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Another math fix – numerical solution – wbm1058 (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Yay! Finally  Done wbm1058 (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Saddam Hussain

Are you sure about that deletion, considering earlier revisions? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Silly me, that wasn't you. Sorry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
No problem, I took care of it. Some speedy patrollers need to slow down a bit. wbm1058 (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much

..for the alert. Had I known I would have been happy to stop yesterday. As I said, it seemed OK as there were a number of such talkpages created a couple of years ago. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

not sure what to do about a hostile editor

hello. I am visually impaired. I am new to Wikipedia and I have no idea how to report people who are being hostile. it's very difficult for me to type in HTML so I am really out of my league here.

A help page suggested I contact an admin, it sent me to an admin page, I saw your account, so I thought I would ask for help.

Anyway, some guy made changes to a Wikipedia page, and I pointed out his mistakes to him on a "talk" page, I told him I was visually impaired and wasn't able to undo all the stuff he had done, and then he attacked me and accused me of not being visually impaired.

I looked at his talk page and he seems to be hostile to a lot of people.

I don't use wikipedia enough to learn how to do all of these things. I can barely type this message to you. I don't even know how to find this page again to see if you reply. I am really not built for this kind of computer work.

But if there is some way to report this person for being hostile, I hope you will help. Thank you.

Here is the talk interaction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yappy2bhere#richard_cheese

And here is the wikipedia page I noticed was being modified incorrectly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Cheese&action=history


thank you for any help you can provide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:9442:6d00:9038:8a8c:a80:dabc (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I've needed corrective lenses since a rather young age. I stopped wearing contact lenses several years ago when my need for progressive lenses became more than what contacts could handle. My optometrist recently referred me to an eye specialist because I've developed a particular condition related to aging eyes. Fortunately though I'm still able to pass the eye test required to renew my drivers license. So I can sympathize. Someday my eyes may deteriorate to the point where I'll need to retire from Wikipedia, though I hope that day is still many years off.
The end credits in that YouTube video are low-resolution and not well-focused. If you can read those, I think your eyes are fine for editing Wikipedia. I wouldn't play up your impairment. Other editors really have no need for knowing that. I edit Wikipedia on a relatively large high-definition desktop monitor and that wasn't much help for making that video better-focused. The other editor let your revert stand after you pointed out the reference in those blurry credits. Don't sweat the small stuff. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


I didn't watch that YouTube video, I re-watched the movie on iTunes (not blurry). Then I called a friend to tell me the timecode in that YouTube video where the credits appeared. I originally saw the movie credits in a theater on a big screen, that's how I knew that the edit (accusing it of being "spurious") was wrong. But he also changed a bunch of other stuff on the page, which clearly shouldn't have been changed. Albums that are clearly available on iTunes. So why doesn't he update the page to include those links, instead of just deleting those from the page? If a window is dirty, you clean it; you don't shatter it and demand that someone else replace it. Is that how Wikipedia works? 

And the larger point is, why is that person attacking strangers, especially who have a disability, and accusing them of not having a disability?  Is that kind of behavior acceptable on wikipedia?  I feel like that isn't 'small stuff.'

Anyway, thank you for your help. If you know anyone who wants to go through that page and undo the improper deletions, I hope you can get someone else to do it. I don't feel like I should undo his revisions because he's just going to attack me again. 

I didn't come here to fight, but clearly he did.  He gets into these fights all the time, according to his talk page.  Shouldn't he be banned for repeated hostility?  This is really a sour experience and I don't understand why people are so hostile to strangers.  Sad times.

As for your eyes, I recommend the Jules Stein Eye institute at UCLA in Los Angeles. Good luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:9442:6d00:d2a:44c8:e56a:9997 (talk)

Re: "SARS-CoV-2"

Thank you!! I have always felt this way, but I always get annoyed when people continue to capitalize the "O". At some point, I started doing it too, because it's difficult to remain in isolation about these things. But anyway, it clearly should be a lowercase "o", because it's from "Coronavirus" not "COronavirus". Lol.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Computer keyboard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PDA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Please watch out for In-use Template

I AGF it was not intended, but [6] while a {{In-use}} was in place very nearly cost me 30-40 minutes work during a fairly major edit; as in is it has cost me 10 minutes. I see you were using Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups and if this cannot recognise {{in-use}} then there is a problem. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

My bad. Belated apology. Sorry I did not realize that capitalizing a single letter would be so disruptive to your edit. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Naming musical duos

I looked further, here's what I found: WP:Naming conventions (music) says articles on musicians are covered by WP:Naming conventions (people), including what is said there on groups of people (WP:Naming conventions (people)#Articles combining biographies of two or more people), and the latter says Occasionally, multiple persons with a strong connection are treated in a single article with the example Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, a musical group named after its members ...) which begins Crosby, Stills & Nash (CSN) was a folk rock supergroup....

If you still think you were correct, could you do Captain & Tennille next? (I'm curious how the Captain would be rendered.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Yappy2bhere: I corrected the lead section of Norton Rose Fulbright to make it comply with WP:NCCORP. Rather than use an "other stuff" example to justify an exception to a convention, better to fix the other stuff. Kirkland & Ellis does state the official name Kirkland & Ellis LLP in its lead sentence. If you know of an official fictional name for Dewey, Cheatem & Howe then please do update the lead sentence to state it. What do you think Captain & Tennille should be changed to? Unlike Hall & Oates there doesn't seem to be any dispute there over what their official name is; it's the same as the common name. WP:Naming conventions (people)#Articles combining biographies of two or more people isn't overly prescriptive, and gives examples that support my edit: Christo and Jeanne-Claude, Pierre et Gilles, Gilbert & George, Sacco and Vanzetti. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
"Sacco & Vanzetti"? I don't listen to country music. OK, so Hall & Oates was adventitious. You misunderstand, I'm not in favor of changing Captain & Tennille, but if you do change it I'd very much like to see what happens after, so pls ping me in that event. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
You misunderstood. I am not in favor of changing Captain & Tennille either. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:National Institute on Money in State Politics.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:National Institute on Money in State Politics.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) 19:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The image was used on National Institute on Money in State Politics, which became National Institute on Money in Politics, which was merged to OpenSecrets. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Potential bot issue - redirects in the talk namespace

Hi, courtesy note to this discussion regarding Bot1058 ~TNT (she/her • talk) 23:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry that I came across as a bit aggressive with the noticeboard and such. I didn't mean to. It's just a bit problematic for the bot to go around recreating recently-deleted pages. I don't think the majority of those pages cause any problems, and as bot bugs go, its fairly benign. I just wanted to see if a solution could be worked out to get the bug worked out. I think your bot does great work. Hog Farm Talk 02:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks. Actually I've added a thing or two in June and August for the bot to make null-edits (purges) to clear, which explains the uptick in this issue's frequency of occurrence. So I needed a push to get it done. I was a bit aggressive with my response, so we're even now ;) wbm1058 (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

ANI where I mentioned you

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:FloridaArmy recreated deleted BLP Stuart Scheller. Thank you. I mentioned you in relation to a comment you made about a disputed article. Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Slick work on the merge (which you made look simple) and closing the RfD. BusterD (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks (merge, RfD close). Just reading the update now (he pled guilty to six misdemeanor-level charges) at Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021) § Reactions. Happy to see that others are keeping on top of the story. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Promotional gobblespeak

may be my new favorite edit summary. Thanks for the laugh. Star Mississippi 16:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

Well, I guess "I'm sorry" isn't enough, is it. But I am. I am so sorry I didn't consult you when I discovered that workaround and did not get with you before I documented it. I should have. I really should have. And I'm very sorry I didn't. I'll try to do better next time. Hope that someday you will be able to forgive what I did. I always want to be on a good track with you, so thank you for the stick to my behind and thank you beyond words for your herculean efforts to make this encyclopedia better! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 18:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: consider yourself forgiven. The trouble-stirring IP at Template talk:Requested move has been blocked as a sock of a banned editor so let's finish sorting this out there. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Again, thank you, and as I said, I'll try to do better in the future. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 17:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

btw, I also miss editor Dekimasu. For a long time I've considered him a pillar of this community and a great source of wisdom and encyclopedic improvement. Any idea what happened to him? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 20:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

No idea what Dekimasu has been up to. I'm happy to see that you think of me as a "pillar of the community" too! wbm1058 (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
You and Dekimasu have been on that page for a long time! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 17:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear wbm1058,

I noticed that many pages in Wikipedia have links to Robin's Nest, which is a disambiguation page. Please change the link to Robin's Nest (TV series).

Thank you.

-Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Republic of Taiwan (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Republic of Taiwan (disambiguation) 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia title cleanup (sorted by template)

Hello, Wbm1058,

This category you created popped up on the nightly Empty Categories list. These categories are typically tagged for deletion in the next day or so but they are almost always content-related categories, not Wikipedia or project-related categories. So, I thought I'd bring this to your attention as I don't know the purpose behind this category and whether it should be filled with pages or whether it is no longer useful and can be tagged CSD C1 and sit in the Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for a week. Of course, as the page creator, you can delete it if you believe that should be the next step. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. Seems I'm late to that party: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Template:Cleanup title. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that alternate universe of templates is gone. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Looks like I came to talk to the right person. Thanks for the follow-up. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Now I've discovered Template:Renamed, created last Christmas Eve as a "gift" to the gnomes, and removed that template from the one page that was using it. We whacked a few moles, but not before another one popped out of the ground. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Sidcup School of Art

I disagree with you about mistrusting an institution's own history regarding when it was founded, but British newspapers are hard to search even with a UK local library card, which I haven't got; I tried a Wikipedia Library membership to the British Newspapers Archive for a year but found it absolutely useless, so I don't even have access to that to try. So I've just spent a lot of time trying to establish whether Sidcup Art College was the same institution as Sidcup School of Art.

There are a vast number of book references to the Rolling Stones, other 60s bands, and London in the 60s referring to Sidcup Art College, including Keith Richards' autobiography. But really, just a ton of books. And one Rolling Stones forum page referring to Sidcup Art School.

Outside that focus, there's an equally vast number of references, in books and online artist biographies, to Sidcup School of Art. This includes multiple mentions of its being founded by Cecil Ross Burnett: [7], [8]. This summary from an aggregation site gives an idea of the artists we are failing to connect it to: "This little-known art school was established in 1898 by Cecil Ross Burnett who was for many years its headmaster. While it did produce some fine artists such as the aforementioned Ross Burnett, Wally Fawkes (Trog), Jean Clark, Margaret Thomas and John Titchell arguably its greatest claim to fame that Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones was a student there." We have plain-text mentions at Frederick Cuming (artist), Jean Clark (artist), and Margaret Thomas (painter), and it is the "Sidcup" in Frank Auerbach (he met his wife, Julia, when he taught her there). But the National Archives listing (which refers laconically to the records being at Bexley Local Studies and Archive Centre) is under the heading "Sidcup School of Art, Grassington Road, 1952–1964". This conflicts with not only the 1962 establishment date for Ravensbourne College but with the considerable pre-1952 history of Sidcup School of Art, so I wonder whether it just moved to Grassington Road in 1952?

It's possible the institution either formally or informally became a "college" by the 1960s in response to changing fashions or as part of its jostling for government support; among the Google hits was a mention of a failed attempt to be approved for granting a newly introduced diploma, and a 1978 directory listing has it as a 16+ institution with day and night classes including preparatory (which suits the stage of education at which, for example, Keith Richards went there). An interview with Phil May calls it Sidcup School of Art but attests to its being the institution we and the vast bulk of sources on the Stones and the Pretty Things call Sidcup Art College: snippet 1 and snippet 2. But it's also possible they were rival institutions, or one was a postwar re-foundation; or that the Art College nomenclature got started as a bit of social climbing on the part of someone involved with the Stones mythos and has just established itself by repetition. I would like to see a smidgen of independent sourcing equating the names, like something in the local press from either the 1960s or the development of the site for the supermarket in the oughties, or a use of the "college" name in an independent reliable source referring to the Ravensbourne merger (what was Ravensbourne known as after the merger but before closing its fine arts department in the 1980s? if not Ravensbourne, there may be a search term that would turn up something). If I were confident they are the same, I would have added considerably to the Sidcup Art College article, which only covers the Stones and mentions the Pretty Things, absolutely nothing about the institution itself, and I would have gone on to research Burnett; our article on him is a one-line placeholder. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow, what a rabbit hole we've been led to. This source seems as reliable as any I've seen, and it uses both terms "school" and "college". It's probably more reliable than some "true crimes" site, and at least we don't have to worry about whether we might have pointed to the wrong convicted criminal. I myself went to an institution that started out in the late 1800s as a "School", was called "College" when I attended, and is now a "University". Sidcup is an area of south-east London, which I suppose could have been home to multiple art schools, but you'd think if it was then at least some sources would make efforts to {{distinguish}} them. Creating the redirect heads off a possible WP:Content fork. I don't really care to spend much more time on this. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I quite understand :-) I had found and felt a bit iffy about the Artblogs source (I refer to it above as an aggregator and quote from it) when I made my edit to the Ravensbourne page, and I've now mined its record on Wayback and the history of our Ravensbourne article to try to determine whether there was copying in either direction. The site first appears on Wayback in 2012. Its Ravensbourne page hasn't been archived, but Ravensbourne was first added to its list of pages on art schools between 9 November 2017 and 9 November 2018 (the archiving run in September 2018 failed on that page). Our page started off in 2005 with "A three-way merger between the art schools of Bromley, Sidcup and Beckenham in 1962 effectively gave birth to today's College." and had already lost Sidcup from the history during one of several promotional-appearing edits throughout its history, on 28 August 2007. In 2017 and 2018 the discontinuity between the intro and the start of the History section was fairly stable. The "About" page for Artblogs says that it originated as a one-person project based on art books. Whereas the edits to our article that alternate with the promotional ones use an interesting blend of sources: in particular on 16 February 2010 Lonegroover added the furniture design department amalgamation in 1959 and the broadcasting department in 1981, using "the college's and Bromley Council's websites" (but without re-adding the 1962 merger). Several refs have been and gone. One on collaboration with businesses and one on students considering it one of the UK's worst universities are probably no big loss. But this assemblage of transcribed news clippings is highly informative and I'll cite it again alongside Artblogs; it seems clear that although there may have been sources in common, Artblogs has not copied from Wikipedia and does not actually contradict Ravensbourne's own site; it has both the 1962 merger (which it refers to as having happened "[a]bout this time", referring to December 1962) and the 1959 furniture department merger. Also Artblogs clearly equates Sidcup School of Art with Sidcup Art College. They may be wrong on that, but a detail in another source that we formerly had, an oral history record where the recording wasn't accessible to the Wayback bot, suggests my hunch is right about a post-war renaming at Sidcup: "Bromley School of Art which became Bromley College of Art after the war". Ravensbourne was clearly scrambling for spaces to put its teaching departments (and to house its students) as it underwent both increasing enrollment and additions to its course offerings; the Sidcup site presumably continued for several years as a satellite location, coinciding with Keith Richard and the Pretty Boys attending and playing early concerts there. I intend to edit both the Sidcup and the Ravensbourne articles, but with as careful wording as I can manage in case we are conflating 2 institutions based on Artblogs. And I'll need to go through the alumni section at Ravensbourne in case anyone there actually went to one of the precursor institutions; I think there should be a separate sublist on the Ravensbourne list for Bromley. Anyway, those are tasks I've taken on; I in no way mean to imply you should do any of this :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
... Actually I'm a naïve idiot. Artblogs' initial section, "Ravensbourne, which was formerly Bromley Technical College, was opened in 1959 by the amalgamation of the Bromley School of Art and the Department of Furniture Design of the Beckenham School of Art." is, except for "Ravensbourne," rather than "The institution," word-for-word the same as the wording placed in the intro in an IP edit on 17 August 2011. So Artblogs has copied either from us or from a common source (somewhat unlikely, since Wikipedia's earlier wording began "Ravensbourne was formerly Bromley Technical College, formed in 1959 ..."). Sigh. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade attack

If you'll check it, at the time I tagged that redirect I had just closed a malformed requested move, the title of which had just been moved due to a discussion that had, again at that time, determined that to use "attack" was a BLP issue. So yes, at that time, this was considered an unsuitable title. New facts come out about this very quickly, and at present it might be okay to include "attack" in the title as a COMMONNAME. I don't know, but I do wish you would not attack me on a personal level – "take care not to spam the project..." – over this or any other edits I've made. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 00:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Paine, my bad for letting my frustration boil over. I need to get you up to speed on this task: Linked incorrect names: Quarry query
This is related to Linked misspellings, where we have active help working that beat, and Linked miscapitalizations, where we don't.
For a long time the misspellings list was often maxing out at >1000 items. Most gnome-minded editors find such long work queues to be discouraging. They want the satisfaction of knowing that they're making a difference. They view such lists as 'hopeless' so they don't even try. They find work elsewhere, where they can see the progress they're making. I spent a lot of time virtually single-handed tacking that monster. Only after I got it down to a manageable size did I notice help had finally arrived. Now, today, there's just 25 pages on that list.
I got the miscapitalizations list down to just 27 items as recently as October 27. But alas nobody has appeared there to help me yet, so now it's back up to 151 pages, less than a month later.
I set that aside for a while after I figured out how to generate the "incorrect names" list. There were 1912 pages on the list when I last ran the report on November 5. I just ran it again and now it's at 1927. Items on the list with a lot of links include National Academy of Science, National Register of Historical Places and American Broadcasting Corporation. Chicago University Press should be on that list too, but I understand why someone would want to tag it as a misspelling, as on that list it has more of a chance of being tended to sooner rather than later, given the current 'hopeless' status of "incorrect names".
So "spam" isn't really the right word for this, but, lacking a better term, sorry I used it. Just appealing for you to just tag most redirects from moves as {{R from other name}} unless you're "absolutely sure" that they're wrong. Hint: if a page moved as a result of a week-long RM discussion, odds are the former title wasn't absolutely wrong. Give developing news stories time before passing judgement. But OK, if there are BLP concerns then please do immediately bypass all redirects from the concerning title to the current title, and indicate what the closest alternative "good" title is. wbm1058 (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Goldmark

For example, looking at the German Wikipedia with help from Google translation, on Sep 17th 2013 the page de:Goldmark moved to de:Mark (1871) with reason: "Goldmark is not the official name of the currency of the German Empire from 1871" – an "official name" argument. Seems "Goldmark" is a common name, if not the most common name. The lead sentence of the current version says: The Mark (Mk or ℳ, M in Latin script), retrospectively as "Goldmark called," was the unit of account..." — In other words, German gold mark seems like a valid alternative name or retronym. A quick Google Books search confirms this. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Naarm (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Naarm (disambiguation) 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SACO Hardware logo.gif

⚠
⚠

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) 18:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Ba-Bz

Hello, Wbm1058,

I believe AnomieBot created this redirect with a different kind of dash. This list is actually broken down alphabetically. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Yes, I know. This creates an annoying conflict when a list is split. List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Ba–Bh & List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Bi–Bz. The bot links from the dash to the en dash to explain/justify why it created that legitimate redirect. Then Paine Ellsworth tags the old redirect as {{R wrongname}} after the list is split, which says that links to that are wrong and should be eradicated. I'm working to clean up these Linked incorrect names. It's easier to just delete these. Some lists are split, then split again, and again and again, which makes for a lot of old redirect clutter. When I catch these quickly (and sometimes even when I don't) I speedy them as "recently created, implausible redirects. The implausibility was introduced the moment the lists are split. I don't want to linger too long on any one of these, as I have, what, 1500+ left to do. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

  1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere
    The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
  2. Level of scrutiny
    Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
  3. Standards needed to pass keep rising
    It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
  4. Too few candidates
    There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
  5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

  1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
    Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
  2. Admin permissions and unbundling
    There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
  3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
    Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

  1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
  2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
  3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

  1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
  2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

TheSandDoctor Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--TheSandDoctor Talk 05:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello…

Do you respond? 2A02:C7F:5640:100:A58D:8D94:79E7:F49D (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any New Years resolutions to share with you now. Maybe next week. wbm1058 (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The MfD closure at WP:AN

Hi Wbm1058, just so you know, I've added a statement about the closure to WP:AN#Wikipedia:Administrative action review has been listed at MFD now. And I have reopened the discussion in the hope of someone uninvolved coming to the same conclusion. Thanks for your notification and the endorsement; let's see what happens. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed someone uninvolved did speedily come to the same conclusion. Wikipedia:Administrative action review is still limping along as a newly created process and norms are still being established. But over a month went by between comments on its talk page where presumably norms would be discussed and established. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

So many things needing fixed, so little time time get to more than a fraction of them, sigh. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
And now that I've finally successfully retrieved data from the Toolforge database, to get lists of pages for null editing, I'm archiving this. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

FOLLOWUP: User talk:MusikAnimal/Archive 44#Tunneling into the replica English Wikipedia database via PHP on Windows Hi. Nearly seven years ago you helped me with connecting to the replica database on Labs and we got as far as you can see your Labs MySQL credentials with cat ~/replica.my.cnf.

I didn't actually ever get that far because, as I recall, someone else picked up the ball I was carrying, and... figuring it all out was just too hard and time-consuming.

Fast forward seven years and now I've picked up another ball which I resolved to hold onto until either I solved it or someone else took the ball.

I successfully installed PuTTY and finally logged into my account on

====================================================================== 

 _____  _____   _____         ______  _____   ______  ______  _______
  |    |     | |     | |      |______ |     | |_____/ |  ____ |______
  |    |_____| |_____| |_____ |       |_____| |    \_ |_____| |______

======================================================================

"...a server of the tools Cloud VPS project, the home of community managed bots, webservices, and tools supporting the Wikimedia movement."

where after getting stuck at Passphrase for key "rsa-key-20150713": I kept getting Wrong passphrase until ~two days later I had an epiphany and remembered it!

Then cat $HOME/replica.my.cnf revealed my user ID and password. (I needed to type $HOME rather than ~)

Then I successfully installed MySQL Workbench and got it working by following these instructions. I've successfully used MySQL Workbench to make the same queries I made on Quarry (and got the same results).

Now I'm stuck at The next part is figuring out how to get your PHP app to connect to the database through the SSH tunnel... maybe with the connection open through Putty and your credentials defined in the app it will just work, I'm not sure. E.g. if the PHP app is looking for a local MySQL database and 127.0.0.1:3306 (default port) is routed to the labs db through the SSH tunnel, you might be all set.

See the example code at wikitech:Help:Toolforge/Database#PHP (using PDO). I've tried both PDO and MySQLi and it fails the same way on both:

PHP Fatal error: Uncaught PDOException: PDO::__construct(): php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: No such host is known.
Warning: mysqli::__construct(): php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: No such host is known.
Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [2002] No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it.

The line where it fails only specifies four of the nine or ten parameters I needed to set for MySQL Workbench to work.

  • $db = new PDO("mysql:host=enwiki.analytics.db.svc.wikimedia.cloud;dbname=enwiki_p", $ts_mycnf['user'], $ts_mycnf['password']);
  • $mysqli = new mysqli('enwiki.analytics.db.svc.wikimedia.cloud', $ts_mycnf['user'], $ts_mycnf['password'], 'enwiki_p');

The PHP installation manual says:

In the official PHP Windows distributions, MySQL Native Driver is enabled by default, so no additional configuration is required to use it. All MySQL database extensions will use MySQL Native Driver in this case.

So I assume that the other five or six parameters need to be specified in the MySQL Native Driver somehow? wbm1058 (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

To clarify the above, when I try
$mysqli = new mysqli("enwiki.analytics.db.svc.wikimedia.cloud",..., I get
"No such host is known"
and when I try
$mysqli = new mysqli("127.0.0.1:3306"..., I get
"No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it" – wbm1058 (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Connecting to the database replicas from your own computer says to set up a tunnel so that connections to port 4711 on your own computer will be relayed to the enwiki.analytics.db.svc.wikimedia.cloud database replica's MySQL server on port 3306. This tunnel will continue to work as long as the SSH session is open.

Also, Windows 10 has OpenSSH included and the ssh command can be used. On older versions of Windows, you can use the tool PuTTY by add in Connection → SSH → Tunnels the following settings.

I'm still running Windows 7 on my desktop which is my main Windows machine supporting Wikipedia 24×7. I have a Windows 10 laptop which I use for backup but which is often powered down. I can try the Windows 10 SSH command later but first I want to get this running on my desktop using PuTTY. My PuTTY session is still open, and my understanding is that I need to keep my PuTTY session open 24×7 to be able to run a PHP bot that tunnels to the database 24×7. I configured my PuTTY per How to set up PuTTY for direct access to your Toolforge account. There the Session configuration says to specify port 22. Why 22 and not 4711 or 3306? All these port numbers are confusing for someone still trying to understand what they all mean.

I see from the banner at the top that "This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries." Sure wish you had a nice talk page watcher or stalker who could help. Trying to ask these questions via email or IRC seems difficult. wbm1058 (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I solved it!!! I uploaded a picture of the key dialog box I needed to fill out. wbm1058 (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I think I understand now that port 22 is for the bastion. Only PuTTY needs to know port 22 to get bastion authorization. Once PuTTY is inside, it can be configured to allow my PHP to tunnel in without needing to know the bastion's port number. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wbm1058/Archive_9&oldid=1090911071"