User talk:DB1729/Archive 2

Should I stay or should I go?

Hey there, buddy! How's it going? I need some advice. Lately I have been quite heavily counteracted here on Wikipedia, so much so that I'm seriously considering quitting for good.

• A massive cleanup, update and addition to BAE Systems Tempest was butchered to pieces in a massive vandalist raid by some guy called Mark83 who seem to think he's the owner and boss of the article, leaving just half of it – and he's a freakin' admin! I saw some time later that he left me a message but I haven't read it because I don't think it's fruitful, damage is too much. I think he's unsuitable as an admin and should be stripped from his privileges. And frankly I want to kick his teeth.
• Added FIFA ranking to a table but some wikilord thought it should only go in a different table, which only can be filled a full year later when the draw has taken place. This S.A. Julio has been a nuance in the past, notoriously removing things to his personal preference as I perceive it. One thing I remember is a goal list template for the Olympics football someone else removed, so I re-added it and put it within comment tags so it wouldn't look bad and still give less experienced editors the opportunity to contribute as well. I for one had never seen that code before, and I would probably never have found it. But nope, he thought it shouldn't be there at all until there were goals, which I interpreted as only initiated persons should be able to add goals, and I figured he probably wanted exclusive rights to it.
• A request for autopatrolled rights was quite rudely dismissed. I would be totally fine with not meeting the requirements, which I really didn't, but saying there's no reason, like I am to blame, when the whole thing is meant to be a freakin' relief to admins is just… atrocious.

I've had much experience like this on the Swedish Wikipedia where I started, and I have left it because of that. That whole Wikipedia is run by biased deletionists who review everything and don't follow their own rules, so you can't do anything there without their blessing. 1-2 years ago they set out on a crusade to delete one million articles which they deemed unnecessary, just like that. I know a ton of people that have been put off because of all that. On the English site things are better, but I seem to hit a wall here as well, and my energy has already been drained from the Swedish side. Two and a half years ago I had a Kafka-esque discussion with an admin about an obvious fix to a template. It took a ton of effort in relation to the issue and was only completely resolved after another member stepped in and stated the obvious, and that took a whole month and drained me of all my wiki-energy for the rest of that year. That permanently cut another good deal of my motivation.

It's said that if you think everyone around you are idiots, then you are the idiot. I'm starting to think that I have got everything about Wikipedia wrong. The last two bullet points may seem petty, but they are just examples of quite a lot of similar backlashes I've got from seemingly respected contributors, forming a long line of negative reception to what I think is constructive. The Tempest butchering was a fatal blow to me. If all this is what awaits me for my planned big contributions and suggestions, including a history article on SWNFT, then it's pointless. You have been quite inspiring though, I might add. What do you think I should do? --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mango från yttre rymden. I'm doing well. Sorry to hear you're going this this tough time. Firstly I think your frustrations are understandable and, unfortunately, far too common around here on WP. I had similar frustrations back when I first started editing as an IP. I thought it would get better once I registered, and it has for the most part, but that may also be due in part because of some changes to my own editing style. I realized writing significantly large sections of prose was simply not my strong suit. My error rate with missing words and other embarrassing typos was a little too high. I began making much smaller and more gnome-like changes. And I started making those small changes incrementally, and explaining each with their own edit summary. I think that style has helped me. I have had my share of edits reverted. Some I challenge. Some are resolved in my favor, some are not. And sometimes I just let the revert go without a word. You see, I make so many small edits, my investment for each is small. But if wrap a huge amount of time and energy into one edit, then I would certainly feel much stress and frustration if it were reverted or butchered. I wouldn't edit here if I didn't get some sort of enjoyment out of it. Landing myself in a drama situation is not enjoyable.

After I looked at the first diff you linked, I thought, 'whoa!, that's a lot of changes for one edit!'. I didn't see anything wrong with it at a glance, but that touches on the problem. It would take a while to determine if all the changes were proper and error-free. Then I read Mark83's post to your talk page and he said to you roughly what I was about to say, advising to make incremental changes instead of one large change. I haven't looked at what Mark did to your edits yet, but I can tell you that if I had made that large edit of yours, I would be concerned that someone might just revert the entirety outright. Some editors, if they don't feel like going through every change within the edit, and they happen to see one or two things they don't agree with, may then think the whole thing is now suspect and "play it safe" by simply reverting. Not saying that's what Mark did, but the point is, making smaller changes and saving them one at a time has a lot of advantages. It allows for better, more precise and succinct edit summaries, as opposed to long paragraph-type edit summaries. You can explain each type of change and editors can read the edit summary, look back at the diff, and be 'yeah ok, that sounds reasonable, makes sense' and move on without having to put much time and effort into understanding the changes made. After you have made several quality changes to the article, the editors who are watching the page will soon start to view your changes in a quality light. They will know you have established yourself as a competent editor and one who is familiar with the subject matter. They may become more likely to accept your changes without question. They may still challenge some of your edits, but it's less likely to be a confrontational, stressful ordeal.

I'm a little tired right now, but before I go (and I plan to get back to you tomorrow after I have looked though the rest of the events you mention) I want to tell you you're not the idiot and it is completely understandable and normal for you to be feeling like you do right now. I've been there.

To be continued tomorrow... DB1729 (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

So I checked out the other incidents.

The FIFA qualification table one looks like the typical 'we've always done this a certain way and we're gonna be consistent and not change now' even if there is a benefit to adding information found elsewhere.

The autopatrolled dismissal was indeed rather brusque, especially considering the way the same admin politely explained to a requester above why they were being denied. To be fair though, the banner at the top says you are unlikely to be granted the right if you have created fewer than 25 articles; and you had created only 3. It's not like you're just a tick shy of the cutoff. I'd assume that minimum requirement is displayed for a reason. I think the admin, first seeing your article count and then your first words "I rarely create articles" and immediately got himself into 'why is this person even bothering us' mode, and then the curt dismissal. An admin should know to put in a little more time and politeness when refusing any request.

The whole task force coding thing is baffling to me. I have no experience with task forces nor the coding you were all talking about, but it seemed like such a straight forward thing that no one could possibly object to and probably should have been done already. And in the end, you find out there was consensus afterall and already approved. And then, good grief, the editor still was hesitant and it took another editor to point out this clearly should be done and about being "pernickety" (love some of the words I see used here, I rarely if ever come across otherwise).

Back to the Tempest affair. Mark did gut half your changes, but on the bright side, he left half of it there. So it wasn't a total loss and your edit is still a significant contribution to the article. Also fwiw, Mark wasn't just picking on you. He was altering/removing other editors contributions as well and left edit summaries for each explaining the change or removal. So at some point if you want to revisit those changes, it would be easy to identify the ones with which you have the biggest issue. It's already been over two months since he made those changes, maybe by the time you get back around to that page, Mark will have a fresh perspective on some of those things, who knows?

As for "should I stay of should I go", well of course I would rather you stick around. I think you are a huge benefit and valuable asset to the project. The decision is of course yours and yours only. Just don't do anything rash or stupid like getting yourself blocked or something if you decide to step aside. Don't burn the bridges behind you. The great thing about quitting WP is it's nowhere near as momentous as say a real-life retirement decision. You can walk out on WP with every intention of never returning, and it will still be here for you if/when you decide to return. The stakes are low here.

Hope I've been of some help. DB1729 (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm terribly sorry for the awfully late reply. I did not expect such a quick and thorough reply from you, and was a bit overwhelmed. I was thinking I should reply in kind. But I couldn't come up with something matching. So I waited to see if I could get some inspiration, but to no avail. I waited some more, but still nothing. Now I started to feel that I had to compensate for the wait as well, and it turned into a viscous cycle. I figured I should at least reply before the end of the year, but alas, I didn't even succeed with that. So now with the World Cup going on I thought I had to rip the band-aid, come clean to you with this and just say thank you very very VERY much for your support. It was more than I could imagine.

I see that I just narrowly made it to the archive. I took the liberty of bringing it back on top as it's the earliest thread, but feel free to move it of course, it's your page.

I really appreciate your advice, and I started practising it unconsciously before I read it, but I seem to run into mountains again and again, oblivious to what lies ahead of me. It seems inevitable. But I have found a way, I have found energy to deal with this. So I have decided to take the bulls by the horns, one by one. Right now I'm entangled in this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sweden_national_football_team#Requested_move_27_July_2023 Wasn't expecting it to turn into a clash about right of decision.

Are you following the World Cup? We meet again… *evil grin* I haven't followed football at all between last summer and this WC, but I have watched most matches so far.

So please, I really beg of you, you really must make a rivalry article someday. Not anytime soon, but some day, some year. Perhaps it's too much to ask for by me after being so late, but I wanted to let you know. It will take a couple of years for me to catch up with everything I want to do anyway, but I firmly believe I make this a better thing to work on with my small but significant structural changes.

Which leads me to something I would like your opinion about…

Idea on reinstating A-class quality in assessment

It has bugged me for a long time that the step from a C-class article to a B-class is so large. I think the concept of classify articles on content and quality is a great way incentivise improvements, but the step there feels prohibitively large.

My idea is that we reinstate class A, basically move today's criteria for B into A, and then have B as a middle ground. A further step in that direction is to strip the quality criteria for A so that C, B and A are only about content, and GA and FA is about quality as well, making the class system streamlined and easy to understand. But that's an optional step that may be proposed later or not at all. What do you think? --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mango från yttre rymden: Hi! Pleasantly surprised to see you finally replied:) Yes I'm following the WWC. In a few hours I expect a Sweden victory over the US that's at least as dominant as the one in the last Olympics. Although, there have been some surprising results already, so you never know. Why they play the game, right?

I haven't completely given up on one day creating the rivalry article, but I don't do hardly any content creation. I tried it a bit years ago as an IP and found I simply wasn't good at it. I'm not sure I would do well to cut my teeth with that subject.

Along those lines, because I don't do much on new content, I'm afraid I don't really have any experience, insight or thoughts about article assessment. What you say makes sense, but I'm not the right type of editor to offer advice on the topic. --DB1729^talk 03:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I see that you have upgraded yourself. I didn't have time to reflect on that last time. 100 000 edits, my goodness, I didn't know you were so diligent. Two userboxes were right up my alley, so I plucked* them to my user page. Great minds think alike, or how was it? :) Gosh, the Vector 2022 was almost the final nail in the coffin for me. The first day I saw it, the top banner followed you as you scrolled the page. But thankfully it disappeared shortly after. And quite recently I discovered that it actually is possible to navigate menus without javascript, even with keyboard only. That made me realise that it actually is tolerable now, and I reconsidered my stance(?) and decided to go for it again.

My life is in a bit of a turmoil now, and this place, and particularly you, may have given me just enough strength to keep going and thus saved my life. It's always encouraging and elevating to see your work, particularly how well you are communicating with others.

You are underestimating yourself. With your skill, dedication, humbleness and level of activity I reckon you could write about anything and would be an excellent admin. I might suggest you as such one day ;)

I'm an amateur photographer. There's a saying in the business, at least in my part of the world, that goes the best camera is the one you carry with you. It means that a bad camera is infinitely better than none at all. Bigger cameras generally take better quality pictures, but they are generally not brought along often.

That's how I operate. My English is not the best, and I struggle a lot with sports terms, and there are a lot of differences between British and American English in that topic which often gets me entangled, but I know Swedish, and I can bring a lot of insight in that language which is globally not so big, but pretty significant in this field of women's soccer. (this got me curious, so I searched a little and found this gem https://www.visualcapitalist.com/100-most-spoken-languages/)

Even though I do know English pretty well, I do not know American culture well enough, at least not sports culture, to start such an article. I didn't know about the winning percentage concept until we "met" and you kindly explained it to me. I don't know how things really work and are viewed there, and I don't know which news sources are most credible.

I'm hesitant of writing because of all that, but I know that I bring valuable things. If my linguistic or structuring is inadequate, someone can always improve that. The important thing is that the information gets out there.

Even if you think your effort is inadequate, which it really really isn't, you certainly bring an important contribution with such an article.

You should see it as an interesting challenge and the exception to your usual categorisation dwelling ;) A project you do bit by bit on the side

I know a user who can check anything we do, it's User:Tomas e, if you are interested in a limited audience proofreading.

And lo and behold, I actually succeeded with the page move! Goodness grace!

The World Cup has been amazing! There's so much to say about it, but I also think it's sufficient to just ascertain that. Sweden didn't really win but… advanced at least. To the Americans I say Welcome to the new reality because this is what it's going to look like more often than not from now on. The medal subscription is over ;) This could have happened already in 2019. Should have, in my opinion. Spain was the better team in the round of 16 and should have won, but the referee denied Spain a penalty and made an erroneous offside call on a goal they made, despite VAR, and then also erroneously giving a penalty to USA (don't remember which one of them it was), thus handing the victory to USA. After that the Americans got better, and every other team they faced seemed to have a bad day on that particular day they played against USA. Except the Netherlands, which never really were that good. Yes, I'm bitter about that. But back to present time. Nigeria stood out for me and was a joy to watch. Imagine what they could do with a proper management. I like women's national soccer, but even I was hesitant to the rather rapid expansion to 32 teams. But it turned out to be perfect. Australia and New Zealand were great hosts. All the newcomers did really well. Most of them gave the "big" nations a real run for their money, and some "biggies" didn't even make it past the group. I was happy that Germany got ganked, sweet revenge for what I consider a bribe gold in 2003.

This was some of the best sporting events I have ever seen. It had everything. The penalty shoot-out between Australia and France was the craziest/wildest and most enduring/exhaustive such I have ever seen. Holy cow! And the tournament ends with a scandal. It feels like the women's world cup has really taken off now, I'm expecting there will pour in bids for the upcoming tournaments.

Now you may think that I once again drifted away. And frankly I thought so (too). I wasn't planning on going so much into detail, but I wanted to mention something specific, and then another thing popped up, and then another was worth mentioning, and it got a bit long. But then I realised that this little exposition of mine shows this is a significant sports matter, and thus a rivalry article is definitely important.

I forgot to comment your note on different English wording. It's really lovely to remark that.

Which leads me to the *. I don't know if that's the right way to use that word, but I think it looks funny :)

That was a bit of a pity on article assessment, I thought that would be right up your alley considering you are doing categorisation. Oh well. I would still like to show you a draft for a proposal text I wrote about a year and a half ago. All the slashes are alternative wording or phrases that I was considering. I haven't given it a fresh view, and I will/would probably want to change some things, but I thought it was a good draft when I left it, so I wont change anything now before I post it here. Perhaps you could give me some quick feedback on how well you think I present it.

Extended content

Have more class steps in the article development process – bring back class A! Right now we have stub and start at the bottom, which are pretty self-explainatory. Then comes C, which is everything from "a few headlines with a few sentences under each/lot missing" to "humongously large article with just a few small pieces missing". Then there are no less than 3 classes for complete articles of varying linguistic quality. 4 if you count A, which seems to have been unused for a while. It's great you keep a high standard, but you miss the article development process to give incentives to get/allow articles to the it feels absolutely insurmountable for large subjects. but it feels in many cases hopeless to build on bare-bones articles and pretty much never see them reach a higher formal standard by the community. For me that is a great motivator, to take something to the next level. I'm not a master of anything, but good or at least decent at a fair amount of things, so I rarely focus on getting something to the absolute top. As C has such a massive span I often give up on them and sometimes don't even try as it feels like it doesn't lead anywhere. Therefore would I like to see that class C gets split into two (2), one of a lower standard and one of a higher but still clearly under current B. Seeing that A is unused, there is a perfect opportunity at hand: rename the current B-standard to A, and use the "upper C"-standard as the new B. That would render a class level system in rough terms like this: stub = tiny, just a summary or one bit start = small, have a few different bits of the most important pieces, be somewhat explanatory and at least hints the outlines C = decently structured, decent amount of content B = well structured, contains majority of what there should be A = essentially/almost complete, like/similar to current B GA = good article, (complete and) has been proofread by an "inspector" FA = perfect/holds book print quality That would result in two/three classes of structured but incomplete articles (C and B), and one complete in terms of content (A). Stub, start, GA and FA remain the same. Two more or less bare bones at the bottom, three different stages of structural completion, and two proofread and linguistically polished classes at the top. That would make a lot of sense and be very understandable to uninformed readers, particularly that A means "essentially complete". People would be able to figure out that pattern without reading the criteria. It feels so off that B today is essentially complete, that's not really what your intuition says, especially considering that there are classes above the letters for extra polished articles, and even more so when one learns that A is missing in action/omitted. A colour change between A and GA would be needed, so that A becomes dark green to follow the light green of B, and GA becomes blu to distinguish its exclusivity. I frankly think my suggestion is a no-brainer. Even and senseful steps between classes that is good for both readers and editors Reuse of current assets and infrastructure to minimize work for these changes to be implemented I personally prefer a relaxed new A class that doesn't require proofreading/approval, but that is a minor matter that can be discussed. The point is that there should be more quality class steps, and that we should reuse the one currently vacant.

--Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

MS Herald of Free Enterprise

Hi. Please would you add this 1987 disaster event to the relevant Wiki page. It is missing. Many thanks, Ian 77.102.195.43 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. You may do it yourself. To categorize it, go to page you wish to categorize, in this case MS Herald of Free Enterprise, click the edit source button at the top and scroll to the very bottom of the page where you will see the other categories. Add [[Category:1987 disasters in the United Kingdom]] to the existing list of categories. If you've done it correctly, the article will now appear at the category page. Would you care to try it? Let me know if you need assistance. --DB1729 (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually upon further review, the article is currently categorized at Category:1987 disasters in Europe. Considering it states it capsized just off the coast of Belgium, maybe that's best. --DB1729 (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

(Unsigned post below was copied from top and moved here.)

Hiw can I find out if a way when someone is hacking multiple accounts including I have other wiki account that I Cabot get into im. New to this so dont really understand and can use some help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfurb6287 (talk • contribs)

@Dfurb6287: Hello and welcome to my talk page! I have no idea, but I would suggest asking your question at the WP:Teahouse. But before you do, I strongly recommend first familiarizing yourself with basic talk page protocol and etiquette like signing you posts, placing new comments at the bottom, starting new threads with a new section, all of which you failed to do here. The general guidelines are at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Moreover, in the process, your edit removed my archive from my talk page. I'm not mad, it was easily restored and I realize you're new and mean no harm. I'm telling you this because it will probably go a little smoother for you if you follow the procedure more closely when posting at other forums. Good luck! Happy editing! --DB1729 (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Removal of relations categories

Please restore the relations categories you have removed from the list of ambassadors articles. You're misstating the rationale by saying it's categorized by the respective ambassador's categories which are categorized by the main relations category. These articles do belong under the main relations category because these articles are in fact related to the bilateral relations. I don't want to get into an edit war by reverting the massive amounts of edits you have made. You should consult with the International relations project or start an Rfc over there. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi WikiCleanerMan. First, thanks for the feedback. Really, whether I'm right or wrong, I will learn from this and be a better editor, and honestly I feel I don't get enough feedback of any kind about what I'm doing. So it's encouraging to know someone is keeping an eye on me, even if it's after the fact.

I thought it was a fairly straightforward case of over categorization. If I have misunderstood the situation and done something wrong I will do whatever it takes to get it right. Obviously I'm misunderstanding your rationale, because of course those articles are related to bilateral relations. That's why they are subcategorized to it.

It might be worth pointing one or two things. If you exclude the US ambassador pages, the majority were not categorized directly to bilateral relations, merely subcatted. So when I when I started out, it certainly seemed that what I was doing, was consistent with status quo. Also I'm not the only person who has made this change in the past. I've checked some edit histories before I started and along the way, and I would occasionally see edits like this from apparently well-respected editors, in this case an admin. But hey, I'm keeping an open mind, and I've been wrong before. --DB1729 (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Those subcats are specific to the list articles and for articles about the ambassadors in particular. But the overall list article is still relevant to the main relations category. And you're citing one editor. So can't say that's a standard from my view. But please restore the main relations categories as much as you can. A discussion would probably have to be standard at the relations project, but I think most editors aside from myself, would agree to having the main relations category on these list of ambassador's articles. And of course at articles about diplomatic missions representing one country in another. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: Ok I'm going to work with you. Just want to be clear. So are you saying I should first add the bilateral relations categories back to list articles? Then we will still do a discussion at the project page? DB1729 (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Lists of ambassadors categorization. Considering the large number of edits involved, I think it would be wise if I wait until there is a consensus for adding the relations categories, before I do anything else. DB1729 (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

For future reference, the discussion linked above has now been archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 6#Lists of ambassadors categorization. It resulted in no action necessary. DB1729 (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding Gurav subcategory in G and bring G beneath D alphabet.

Sir

  Pls I am requesting you to add Gurav subcategory in brahmin categories in maharashtra. Pls sir add Gurav in G list. And pls put G alphabetically beneath D. Pls sir Prasupadhyay (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Prasupadhyay: Hello and welcome. Categorization works differently than you are assuming. You've been editing the wrong page. The good news is you can still do it yourself:

• Go to the article Gurav. Open the edit window and scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page to where the categories are.
• Find the category [[Category:Social groups of Maharashtra]]. Remove it and replace it with [[Category:Brahmin communities of Maharashtra]].

Go to the page Category:Brahmin communities of Maharashtra, and if you've done it correctly, Gurav should be displayed under G and you're done. Good luck! --DB1729 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding change

Sir I tried but I am not able to do that, pls help me by editing that page.. Pls sir pls... Prasupadhyay (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but given this and this, it would be unwise for me to do it for you. --DB1729 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Top 25 Report

You might be unfamiliar with the Top 25 Report, where you reverted my edit today. The report usually contains some opinions and some attempts at humor by amateurs. User ElijahPepe has been putting a lot of work into automating the report. He also wrote some of the notes this week.

One of his notes said: "The boxer turned internet misogynist continues to make the list, although much further down than his third place last week, a hopeful trend." Someone neutralized his note to say: "The boxer turned internet personality continues to make the list, although much further down than his third place last week."

I wanted to restore ElijahPepe's version, but "misogynist" seemed problematic, so I compromised: "The boxer turned internet 'personality' continues to make the list, although much further down than his third place last week, a hopeful trend." My edit summary was a small joke based on the previous summary, but it was also a true statement of my intent, which was to make it less neutral -- the way it was before.

For the sake of future people who use my IP, I'm asking for you to edit or remove your comment on my talk page so that Tukwila doesn't become known as a source of unconstructive edits. (It's more credible if you do it.) Thank you. 63.226.230.9 (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Done[1] --DB1729^talk 03:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting James MMMM's edits

It's clear to all of us that the user was not interested in interacting with fellow editors or even behaving rationally (Special:Diff/1110421143 ???). I was hoping there was a tool someone could employ to mass-revert edits, but it seems like you had to do them one by one. Thanks for the work! -- Iritscen (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iritscen: Thanks for bringing it to attention. I had James MMMM's talk page on my watchlist, so it was your post that alerted me. By the way, apart from one exception, I only reverted those edits that were clearly wrong and doing harm. There are still some redundant or pointless edits of theirs may be live, including the one you linked Special:Diff/1110421143 as I write this. It and any other case where James MMMM added default sort duplicating the title, can be reverted. --DB1729^talk 20:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Glad if I helped in some small way :-) I don't think there's too many of the user's recent edits left after your reverts, besides some actually-correct (!) edits made to those "Untold" articles, and the edit on the Michael Landon movie page. I'll revert the Landon edit since it can only cause confusion to have that sort directive in there. -- Iritscen (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Just saw this discussion, wondered why the IP blanked this section so decided to read it. Anyway, to cut to the point, there is a relatively new tool that allows for Mass undoing (as opposed to Mass rollback). It is called Kill-It-With-Fire. It isn't entirely finished, so you will probably encounter some issues, but the core functionality does work. Unlike Mass rollback, it can undo edits that aren't the most recent revision. Just thought you'd be interested based on what you've said above. Cheerio. @Iritscen (also pinging you since you were involved in this thread). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting @Mako001, that's good to know! -- Iritscen (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

House of Rosenverd

(This discussion is a response to a message I left on another user's talk page. The original post in italics was copied from User talk:Bearcat#Category:Norway-related lists and placed here for context)

Hello. I happen to have Category:Norway-related lists on my watchlist and I noticed you added House of Rosensverd to the category. The article does not appear be a list in any way, so this may be accidental. Can you please confirm or otherwise explain? Thanks. --DB1729^talk 00:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

AWB, unfortunately, is not an effective tool for evaluating the content of an article; it's only effective for performing simple mostly-automated tasks (like recategorizing articles) that are basically wham, click, next. So I had no easy way of being able to determine whether the page was genuinely a list or not -- the only thing I was able to determine in AWB was that the page already had Category:History-related lists on it as a category, which is demonstrably just silly and not appropriately specific at all, so I just changed "history" to "Norway" in the process of what was otherwise an automated edit. If the page actually isn't a list at all, then it can easily just be removed from the category -- but AWB isn't a particularly effective tool with which to evaluate the content of a page, so "this category that somebody else had previously added to the page should actually have been removed entirely rather than just being refined" isn't the kind of thing I would have been able to determine in AWB. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Understood. Thanks for the explanation. --DB1729^talk 01:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

You caught and fixed my silly mistake of leaving a stray "thumb" on the Inuksuk page. I'll be more careful in the future. DavisGL (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@DavisGL: It looked liked something unintentional. Glad to be of help. --DB1729^talk 01:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Map of time-zones

I’ve left a comment to my changes

Image of map with time-zones describes Crimea as a part of Russia. It is incorrect. Crimea is a part of Ukraine and during Russian invasion to Ukraine, I think, this mistake shouldn’t appear here 145.224.94.139 (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@CBETA1999: Is this you? It was you I reverted.[2] Anyway thanks for the note. This reminds me of a discussion found here Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship/Archive 5#Map. Might be worth a read. I recommend you start a discussion at Template talk:Time zones of Europe. --DB1729^talk 19:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Transport in North America by country has been nominated for deletion

Category:Transport in North America by country has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Anne drew 17:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Companies based in Tyrol

Hello, DB1729,

I saw you tagged this empty category for deletion (thank you for that!) but you didn't post a notification on the talk page of the page creator. You're using Twinkle which should do this automatically so please check your Twinkle Preferences. There should be a box saying "Notify page creator" or "Notify page creator if possible" that should be checked off. And then, when you are tagging pages for any kind of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/MFD/etc.), make sure that this box is checked off on the Twinkle pop-up box. It's especially important for new editors who might not know otherwise why the pages they created are missing. Thank you for your contributions! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Funny, I actually did check if that box was ticked, and it was ticked. But I did not confirm the notice was sent. I recall something like this happening once before, but I can't remember if it was for C1 or something else. It was after that incident that I got into the habit of always making sure that box is ticked. I will look into it further and go over my settings. Thanks! --DB1729^talk 20:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, in my settings, C1 was unchecked, so I fixed that. What is disturbing, is why the TW popup window displays the notify-creator checked box as if it's automatically going to send the notice?? BTW, I tested this before I changed my settings and confirmed the box was already ticked (and remained ticked after selecting C1 within the popup). Twinkle's behavior is wrong in this regard and I'm going to report it at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle later when I have more time. --DB1729^talk 20:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Before I post at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle can you direct me to relevant policies or guidelines on deletion notification. Is it required to notify creators of all speedy deletions, including C1? I'm concerned not only of the popup falsely indicating the notice will be sent, but also that notification isn't the default TW setting to begin with. DB1729^talk 21:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Create an official profile?

(This discussion is a response to a message I left on another user's talk page. See User talk:208.58.216.136#Categories.)

Is it possible for you to create an official profile if provided all necessary information and citations? 208.58.216.136 (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

That's called an article here. I have no actual experience in article creation, but unless there is at least one solid independent source out there, it is likely the article would be rejected. To establish notability the subject must be covered by independent reliable sources. Of the sources you provided, all are borderline, or just sketchy for this purpose: The official website is reliable, but of course, not independent. It can be used to verify facts, but not to establish notability. Facebook is unreliable. Not sure about Genius, but seems it has user-generated content and that would be unreliable. What is needed is something like an interview or a story about the artist in a major rap magazine. Or even if you could find a mention of the artist in another online website that covers the rap music industry, that would help.

I recommend you take your information to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and see what happens. That's what it's there for. Hope this helps. DB1729^talk 04:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Booster pump

I accidentally reverted your removal of the spam category at Booster pump when I meant to remove the reference spam that was added. My apologies, and thanks for catching the category spam. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for catching the spam and removing it!:) I had failed to see the user's other spamming as I was focused on the bogus category they had created. DB1729^talk 13:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)