User talk:Jdaloner/Archive 1

AfD nomination of List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm Jack Greenmaven. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to History of Ptolemaic Egypt because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Greenmaven (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Military organization, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Department of Defence, Department of War and Ministry of Defence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jdaloner. You have new messages at Talk:IPad.
Message added 01:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

May 2014 disambig contest: let's do it again!

Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Brave may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * {{imdb title|id=0118768|title=The Brave]}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Template testcases doc

Hi, which pages was this a problem on? --Redrose64 (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Documentation/testcases was listed in Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates due to its transclusion of Template:Documentation/doc. I noticed several weeks ago that there were a bunch of template subpages in that category that clearly didn't belong there. Most of them were "/sandbox" subpages (in this case, it was a "/testcases" subpage). In virtually every case, it was due to the "/sandbox" (or whichever) subpage transcluding the "/doc" subpage and getting itself listed in the same categories as the main template. Although I fixed the ones that were listed back when I first noticed this (on or about July 25-26), I looked back yesterday, found a few new ones, and fixed those as well. Jdaloner (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, documentation for the documentation; an exception to the general rule that documentation doesn't appear on testcases pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tcplain/doc

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATcplain%2Fdoc&diff=638435959&oldid=626803487

(Updated usage of some templates.)

Hello – hope you've been / still are enjoying the time of year. You may've already realized this, but in case not: a shortcut/redirect sometimes finds greater use than an actual/"official"/etc name because it makes more sense in context ("in the field") while the "official" name makes more sense when the (in this case) template itself is the focus of attention. Hence, for example, "\sandbox" rather than "When in sandbox" because (for example) "tcplain{{\sandbox}}" resembles "tcplain/sandbox" and is less cryptic than the unfinished-looking "tcplain{{When in sandbox}}" ("When in sandbox... When in sandbox... ...do something?"). Similarly, though a name such as {{Pad left and right}} is "per se" informative, a shortcut such as "padlr" is more appropriate given the extent and/or signficance of (in this case) the template's role/action/effect.

Hope that makes (some) sense. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Minor changes

Hello, thanks for tweaking all of the templates and pages in the Food and Drink Project pages! In the future, could you mark these small changes as minor? This would allow those who monitor these pages to filter out these relatively small tweaks you made. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, and as for marking the changes as minor, I thought I was. It's possible I might have forgotten on some of them, though. My apologies if a few got through. Jdaloner (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Bot-like editing

I noticed you recently made 95 bot-like bypasses of redirects. If you are using an automated process of some sort that isn't requiring you to verify and submit each edit manually you should be aware of Wikipedia:Bot policy, and in any case you should read WP:COSMETICBOT and WP:NOTBROKEN. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 14:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not using any automated process; I really don't even have any idea what they are in the first place, let alone how they work, how they're created, etc. I'm well aware of WP:NOTBROKEN, which I do not interpret as applying to the edits you're referring to. The guideline is clearly written for articles ('mainspace' pages), which I was not editing, and I do not believe it applies at all when the redirects are from typos. "{{tl" is often erroneously entered as "{{t1", and I was correcting instances of that specific typo. Jdaloner (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

Your edit summary: unnecessary (and outdated) "DEFAULTSORT" tag. I am curious what is this about. I see this tag everywhere. Can you explain? Thanks, Staszek Lem (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean that usage of the "DEFAULTSORT" tag *itself* is outdated; in the case of my edit from a few minutes ago at Expulsion of Ukrainians from Poland to the Soviet Union, the tag used an outdated article name ("Forcible Expulsion of Ukrainians from Poland to the Soviet Union") and was thus sorting the article in a manner which made no sense when viewing the article in any of its categories. (I was browsing through the category "Post–World War II forced migrations" and wondering why in the world "Expulsion of Ukrainians from Poland to the Soviet Union" was sorted under "F".) This sort of thing is one of the reasons why, as a general rule, it's better *not* to use the "DEFAULTSORT" tag if it doesn't change anything from the existing article title (different capitalization doesn't count as a "change" in this context): the article often ends up getting moved to another title eventually, but the "DEFAULTSORT" tag doesn't get updated and continues sorting the article according to its former title. Jdaloner (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thx. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jdaloner. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Botlike editing, AGAIN

I am noticing that you are once again making bot like edits... Replacing {{url with {{URL. You have previously been warned by Anomie about this... Please be aware of Wikipedia:Bot policy, and read WP:COSMETICBOT and WP:NOTBROKEN. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Did you bother even reading my reply to Anomie's nearly two-year-old post? I was not then, nor am I now, using any automated process; I really don't even have any idea what they are in the first place, let alone how they work, how they're created, etc. Consequently, WP:Bot Policy and WP:COSMETICBOT do not apply. I'm well aware of WP:NOTBROKEN, which does not apply to the edits you're referring to. The guideline is clearly written for articles ('mainspace' pages), which I was not editing. The edits you're referring to were all in the "Template" namespace. WP:NOTBROKEN explicitly states that "In other namespaces, particularly the template and portal namespaces ... it is largely preferable to correct links and transclusions to former page titles that have become redirects following a move"--and that is *exactly* what I was doing. Jdaloner (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I did read your reply but your actions non the less appear that way. The edits you made were unconstructive and template redirects ({{URL}} vs {{url}}) qualify for WP:NOTBROKEN. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: The fact that actions can "appear" a certain way but not actually *be* that way is exactly why we have WP:AGF. Deeming my edits as unconstructive is a matter of your opinion; I disagree with it. You say that template redirects like the one I was performing "qualify for WP:NOTBROKEN"; you do not seem to realize that WP:NOTBROKEN explicitly identifies and endorses the type of edit I was performing. (Template:Url was moved to Template:URL and thus it is "a former page title that has become a redirect following a move". WP:NOTBROKEN says it is "preferable to correct [those] links and transclusions".) Please demonstrate respect for what WP:NOTBROKEN actually says and restore my edits that it explicitly endorses. Jdaloner (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Joseph P. Addabbo Memorial Bridge, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Articles should use the most specific category, e.g. Bridges in Queens rather than Bridges in New York City. Fitnr 15:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fitnr: The page for the "Bridges in New York" category explicitly states "For convenience, all bridges in New York City should be included in this category. This includes all bridges that can also be found in the subcategories." In other words, in this case, the articles are supposed to be listed in both Bridges in Queens and Bridges in New York City. Accordingly, I am restoring the category tags to the three pages you removed them from. Jdaloner (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for USS Princeton (1843)

An article that you have been involved in editing—USS Princeton (1843)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. RM2KX (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jdaloner. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Page should be deleted as historical and now irrelevant

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATony1%2FDraft_of_new-scope_MOSNUM&type=revision&diff=837093980&oldid=371514063

Tony (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

NOTBROKEN

Hi Jdaloner. Regarding your requests to bypass redirects, are you aware of the guideline WP:NOTBROKEN? Why do you think it is beneficial to replace all these redirects? Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am *very* aware of WP:NOTBROKEN. It is directed primarily towards articles (pages in the mainspace). It lists several "Reasons not to bypass redirects" which are entirely focused on mainspace pages. (Most have to do with not adding piping to unpiped links.) It also lists "Good reasons to bypass redirects". I am copying two of those reasons here:

* It is usually preferable not to use redirected links in navigational templates, such as those found at the bottom of many articles (e.g., {{US Presidents}} at the end of George Washington). When the template is placed on an article, and contains a direct link to the same article (rather than a redirect), the direct link will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of articles using the template. There are exceptions to this exception: where a redirect represents a distinct sub-topic within a larger article and is not merely a variant name, it is preferable to leave the redirect in the template.

* In other namespaces, particularly the template and portal namespaces in which subpages are common, any link or transclusion to a former page title that has become a redirect following a page move is to be updated to the new title for naming consistency.

As explicitly stated in the second reason I copied, "In other namespaces ... any link or transclusion to a former page title that has become a redirect following a page move" -- like {{plainlink}} which became a redirect after it was moved to {{plain link}} -- "is to be updated to the new title". Jdaloner (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You've argued why this kind of edit may be allowable, but I am still unsure as to its benefit. When a template is moved it is not standard practice to update all the template calls to the new name. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

PS: Thank you for making the change to {{Signpost-subscription}}, by the way. I appreciate it. Jdaloner (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm just going to nicely ask that you cease doing this. Template redirects exist for a reason. If you think a template redirect shouldn't exist, take it to RFD. Otherwise, please stop clogging my watchlist with your unnecessary minor edits. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, template redirects exist for a reason, and I have no problem with them existing. (Thus there's no reason for RFD.) I mark these sorts of edits as minor specifically because it allows you to *not* see them and have them clog your watchlist. To enable this option (and thus avoid having your watchlist clogged with minor edits), click "Preferences" at the top of the screen (to the right of your user name). On the "Watchlist" tab, under the "Advanced options" heading, check the box next to "Hide minor edits from the watchlist". I hope this helps. Jdaloner (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is I want to see minor edits, specifically because a few of the pages I watch get hit with vandalism marked as minor edits. So no, it doesn't help. What would help is answering the question of why if you think it's perfectly acceptable for a template redirect to exist, why you feel that they should be replaced. Primefac (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BRINT in many cases bypassing a redirect is not only acceptable and wanted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please stop making edits whose only change is to replace a valid redirect with that redirect's target. All it does is clog watchlists. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

First, the edits are marked as minor specifically to avoid clogging watchlists. (If a user, however, specifically chooses to monitor even minor edits, complaining that the watchlist is clogged with edits that are minor seems rather silly.) Secondly, as stated in WP:NOTBROKEN, the edits I'm performing are explicitly identified as ones that *are* to be performed:

"In other namespaces, particularly the template and portal namespaces in which subpages are common, any link or transclusion to a former page title that has become a redirect following a page move is to be updated to the new title for naming consistency." (emphasis added) Jdaloner (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If this is important to you and to the project, please file a bot request. It appears that the redirect is transcluded 1,346 times. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Plesase stop making these edits. Arguments already above. - DePiep (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Also worth reading: WP:COSMETICBOT. Note that this also applies to non-mainspace pages. (e.g., documentation pages). - DePiep (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Rebuttal already above. These transclusions are explicitly "to be updated" per an official editing guideline. And WP:Bot policy itself (the page on which WP:COSMETICBOT is found) "covers the operation of all bots and automated scripts"--rendering it irrelevant here as I am using nothing of the sort. Jdaloner (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

COSMETICBOT says, right in its opening line: Cosmetic changes to the wikitext are sometimes the most controversial, either in themselves or because they clutter page histories, watchlists, and/or the recent changes feed with edits that are not worth the time spent reviewing them. Further on on the page you claim is not for you: While this policy applies only to bots, human editors may also wish to follow this guidance for the reasons given here. - DePiep (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

We are trying to help you avoid getting in trouble. Please read WP:MEATBOT. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Already read it. "Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality..." and "it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors...are actually being performed by a bot...or even by a human without any programmatic assistance." If there are issues with quality/errors in my edits, I am unaware of them as nobody has brought them to my attention. Jdaloner (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

These are large-scale cosmetic edits that are unnecessary. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

MEATBOT is mentioned here not because of speed or errors. It is mentioned for this line (you conveniently did not quote, actually the *only* line from MEATBOT you did not quote): No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked. -DePiep (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the "disruptive editing" as defined in the sentences preceding that sentence--the sentences I quoted. Again, if there are issues with quality/errors in my edits, please feel free to bring them to my attention. Jdaloner (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Course instructor listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Course instructor. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Course instructor redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jdaloner. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)