User talk:MB/Archive 14

South Carolina Hall of Fame

Hi! You added the self published template to the South Carolina Hall of Fame page and I'm wondering why, and how to fix it. All of the information comes from their official website. Thanks! JaneClawsten (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

JaneClawsten, see WP:Notability. Every article should have sources that are independent of the subject. Has this place be written about in newspapers/magazines? Find some outside source that have covered it, otherwise it may be not meet Wikipedia notability requirement. MB 19:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok great, I will do that. Thanks! JaneClawsten (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

New article of possible interest to you

Thank you for your DYK nom for Operation Ivory Soap. I just completed a related article Operation Flat Top about a later project to convert a seaplane tender into a depot-level helicopter repair facility that operated off the coast of Vietnam for 6½ years. If you have the bandwidth and think it is suitable, I'd welcome a DYK nom for this article. Regards, — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 03:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

btphelps, I am very busy right now and don't have time for it. You can do it yourself, the process is not that difficult. I didn't read the article, but in something that long there must be a good hook if not several. MB 01:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for retargeting the redirect

I wasn't sure why New Blue lead to Yale but I was thinking that there was likely a reason for it so I did the redirect hatnote. Thanks for retargeting the redirect instead. Clovermoss (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Clovermoss, I searched the article and it wasn't mentioned. Then I googled it and didn't find Yale as a top hit, so I have no idea why it went there. It didn't even seem like an edge case worthy of a RFD. MB 03:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

From the brief glance I took at it, my best guess was that it had something to do with Yale Blue? But that article doesn't mention New Blue either, so I'm still confused. It seemed like the better route to just do a redirect hatnote when I was unsure because if it did have some well-established meaning with Yale, people would likely be looking for that most of the time compared to a political party that was established in 2020. Clovermoss (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Michael Glaser

You have made three (3) reverts on the Infobox issue. Therefore you must proceed to the discussion on the Talk Page, instead of making further reverts on this.

A discussion has been started there (see bottom of Talk Page).

Thank you, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 05:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

List of museums

Hey, They all do have references. Can you not see them? Also they have links to the actual articles in wikipedia. --Akrasia25 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Akrasia25, Some of them had some references. Much was unsourced (certainly all the redlinks). Furthermore, none had any explanation of what the criteria was for inclusion in the list. They all need to be developed further before being suitable for mainspace. See WP:SAL for what is required. Every article, including lists, needs a lead paragraph. MB 17:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

You are taking SAL to extremes. There are exceptions. The red links are there in other lists and meant to be filled out later (maybe by me). This is not a paper encyclopedia. You could also assume good intentions. One of the articles has already been reviewed and passed by a reviewer which you now decided to send back. I am not interested in doing more on this. Your review just makes me want to take a break from Wikipedia. You could also have helped on improving the article rather than just deleting them. Your review here is not helpful Akrasia25 (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Draft:List of museums in Transnistria was declined by KylieTastic - They agree the article is not ready for mainspace. Regardless of the sourcing, the articles all lack leads to give them any context. You seem to have ignored that. MB 18:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Wolfgang Hoffmann orphan tag

Added four links: Joseph Hoffmann {anomaly: put 'children' under 'parents' in Info Box, but it appears reversed when saved (?)}, Pola Stout, University of Applied Arts Vienna and Kem Weber. Is this enough to removed the orphan tag... or maybe not. Cheers! Shir-El too 08:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Shir-El too, there only needs to be one link from another article, so I removed the orphan tag. MB 14:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

{Belated} Thank You! Cheers! Shir-El too 11:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Wye College

Hi,

I have stripped out a lot of the pictures on Wye College. Does it look OK now?

There is a 2016 third-party tag on the article. The page had been somewhat hijacked by campaigners with their own articles. It would be great if you could express a view on that tag if you look over the pictures again. Many thanks.Ed1964 (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Ed1964, yes it looks good now. I've removed the tags. I also removed a lot of wikilinks. It is not necessary to link common words or terms most readers would be familiar with. See MOS:OL. MB 15:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Convert Error

Hey! Thank you for catching that error on the Samsung Galaxy A20s page. What exactly happened there and how can I prevent it from happening in the future? I assume I need to do a better job about checking things after I’ve made an edit, too.

Thanks again! Cyberweet (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

A beer for you!

cheers! Thanks! Lectorlatinoamericano (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paracel Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cambodian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Gordon Peters - British Actor

Hi all

Very new to Wiki editing, but due to no source, my entry for this actor’s death is removed.

I can tell you now that he did sadly die as I’ve been in contact with his daughter about this. Griff86 (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Griff86, Thanks for contribuiting. Everything in the encyclopedia needs to be WP:VERIFIABLE, that is why everything must be sourced. WP only summarizes what is published in WP:RS not personal knowledge which is original research. Once his death is reported, it can be added with a source. MB 13:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

"Tramping" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Tramping and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 5#Tramping until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Turnagra (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Chigger redirect

Sorry about that - dumb of me not to have looked in the history and seen the RfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Another kind of barn

Barn with hay hood off US Route 60 west in Missouri

I'm seeing more barns with hay hoods in more states, by the way, including NYS and MO.

What kind of barn is this?

‎

In Kentucky and Missouri have also been seeing variations of a different kind of barn than we have covered. These are large, wide, spreading, with wide openings perhaps for horses and farm equipment, maybe never with doors, I dunno. --Doncram (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Doncram, looks like a double catslide - roof extensions at a lower pitch than the main roof that make more area under roof. Although it's probably not called that. Here and here are metal ones for sale. I think it is pretty common. plans for a wood one. MB 02:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Double asymmetrical =? Symmetrical??

Historic barns in Colorado have semi-high center gable, and two lower shed roofs. That is definitely a thing, a type, worthy of an article. I see what you mean that this one is like that, but these in Kentucky and Missoura are different, i will have to pay more attention to defining qualities. One characteristic may be the big doorways' shapes, five-lined (? To coin a term?), unlike doorways present in one of your catalog links. Hmm. --Doncram (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

A somewhat related thing, also available from catalogs, which i was previously aware of needing an article (grammar?), is a loafing shed. You know, like a man cave for horses or cattle. AKA equine shelter or horse run-in shed. User:Pubdog Virginia articles mention them (and i just wikilinked a number of them) as contributing resources. At least one lava rock one by my buddy H.T. Pugh. There are some pics in commons and i could round up more pics im sure. One associated with Ulysses S. Grant, or his horse, and no doubt ones associated with equinious celebrities like Traveller, Secretariat, etc. Not everywhere historically, depends on climate surely, though pansy pet horses anywhere get them probably. One at Fort Rock Valley Historical Homestead Museum where winters esp. cold, summers esp. hot. Doncram (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm watching for historic loafing sheds now, hope to add to Category:Loafing sheds and Media related to Loafing sheds at Wikimedia Commons. Have visited a 100- or 120-year old 6-bay one in Colorado, have yet to see if there's useable sourcing for it. Barely started Draft:Loafing shed.

I have encountered fact that numerous types of farm buildings need articles. Many terms are redirected to "Barn" article, including "horse barn", "cow barn", and "cow house". Seems to me that "horse barn" is not the same as stable, which does have a very brief article.

I am more surprised that "chicken house", "chicken coop", "hen coop" and more are among redirects to "Poultry farming". The Poultry farming article and related articles has interesting treatment of battery cages vs. furnished cages etc. regarding humane-or-not raising of chickens, but just bare mention of term "chicken coop", certainly no pictures or history. The small chicken coop which can be in one's back yard, and historic coops or chicken houses of historic NRHP properties, i.e. anything less than modern huge poultry operations, deserve a separate article.

And Hog house is a redlink, I find when I try to link from John Ross Farm article. It appears to me that Pig farming article is equivalent to the Poultry farming article, and likewise an article on small/historic hog houses is needed IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Backlog drive coordinators

Hello. I had an idea. Should we add the two backlog drive coordinators to the WP:NPPC page? –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, I had thought about that. Wasn't sure if/when the next backlog drive will be or if they want to be considered "permanent" coordinators. On the other hand, it would give them some recognition for managing this drive, which is fine even if they never do it again. So sure. You can probably just do it, or check with them first. MB 03:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

NPP

I was a bit concerned recently from some comments around the site that Arbcom might be intervening to bring about some changes to NPP and AfC. Of course I may well have got it completely wrong, but if there is a modicum of truth in it I don't think it's a good idea. If you are interested in sharing out some of the coordinator tasks and convincing some people to take them on, I believe that among the main issues that need support at NPP are:

• Getting the 90-Day NO INDEX changed to indefinite - this might happen soon - thanks again for following up on it.
• Encouraging reviewers to be more bold over using Draftification, and not worry about any backlogs it creates at AfC.
• Encouraging reviewers to use the tutorial instead of posting questions for help on every small detail of reviewing they can’t get their heads around. Most of it is stuff they should have been diligent enough to learn before they applied for the right.
• Encouraging admins at PERM to accord the NPP right for all applicants who qualify, on a probationary basis first.
• Getting inactive reviewers and hat-collectors removed so that it is known exactly how many genuine reviewers there are.
• Watching why some features of the new pages feed and the curation toolbar are no longer working as they should. I co-developed these years ago with the WMF after a long struggle for them and lots of meetings with the Vice CEO and senior devs, and it saddens me to see them not being maintained. See this page which I created.

IMO they are issues to decided locally by the NPP volunteers directly and not by users who have no practical experience in those areas. A pragmatic approach is what is now needed - just as we did at ACTRIAL - and not stubbornly adhering to some antiquated Wikipedia ideology. A project for it exists. You could start here if you find it helpful.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The ARBCOM case is mostly about civility/conduct related to deletion. IMO, it has nothing to do with the level of NPP issues in your list here. As I mentioned in the newsletter, there have been a lot of VP discussions about NPP and closely related issues, with some saying we do way too much and should just pass everything if isn't a CSD. The inclusionist/deletionist divide is clear, and I think will ensure there won't be consensus to change anything significant. Making draftification easier or harder is the only thing I can imagine happening.

I will pursue getting others to take on specific coordination tasks since there is no willing coordinator or even co-coordinators. May not be around much for a week due to vacation. I will comment in more detail about your list when I have time. MB 07:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC: I am not in any way a deletionist, but I am extremely concerned for the quality encyclopedia I have dedicated thousands of hours to over the years - I am sure many others feel the same way, after all, building a reliable database of knowledge (and not spam or PoV) is what most of us are here for. I hope I'm wrong (sometimes I am), but IMO, submitting the urgent changes required for NPP to discussion by the entire WP community will invite pushback from the thousands of creators of the very kind of articles NPP is designed to prevent from entering the encyclopedia. Also, the WMF is entrenched in the now antiquated ideology that growth in the number of articles is essential to the continued existence of Wikipedia, and they will exploit any excuse to avoid any measures that they belive will impact the creation of new articles - we saw it very clearly with their attitude to ACTRIAL until we proved them wrong. History, SPI and other processes have suggested that the grey number of registered users who abuse our article policies is probably huge. Just my thoughts, but it makes me wonder why I bother at all and still patrol some pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hi. Could you please let me have an update on what is happening on your request for indefinite 'NOINDEX' ? I have been very reluctantly joining in with patrolling new pages and I notice that starting with totally unsourced pages, there are 100s of pages dangerously close to the current 90 day limit or already over it. Please let me have a permalink to the RfC you started at the VP, I've searched everywhere and I can't find it. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  I did not start an RFC. I placed a notice of the NPP discussion at VPR. Still hoping to streamline this and avoid a formal RFC if possible. MB 06:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I realise this now after having vainly tried to locate it from a vague link someone posted at Phab making it look as if it were to be a major RfC. I finally located the post at the VP. As you say, it was indeed only a notification about the RfC at WT:NPR, which still has consensus as did the earlier original RfC which got somehow swept under the carpet. So as far as I can see there should be no reason for anyone to post at Phab in order to stall the request. I have posted at Phab that consensus has not changed and asked them to get on with it. I was a bit disappointed that some people appeared to have possibly been attempting to convince the devs otherwise. But after all these years and the debacle over ACTRIAL I have a nasty suspicious mind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The 'NOINDEX' might not happen after all. I have drifted from peak to peak of optimism, but I think it's more now of doom & gloom. The discussion at WT:NPR seems to have stagnated and one user is doing his best to convince Phab that a stronger consensus is required but of course while Phab is not the place to do it, the damage is done and the devs will run for shelter. You may end up with no alternative than to run a full blown RfC. However, it will only take a few individuals with a vested interest in having their articles indexed to vote 'oppose' and scupper the initiative for good. Nevertheless, before it comes to that, it might be possible to exert some more pressure at Phab to insist that a consensus stands. I've done what I can there but I can't do more. One of the problems is that the person in overall charge of Phab doesn't like me because I have won so many arguments there in the past. NPP might need to be looking towards some alternative and more radical solutions.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I realise you are busy in RL at the moment and I don't want to get on your nerves. I have made a few edits to the draft for a July newsletter. I don't want you think I have usurped your enthusiasm, and I really don't want to get back into the mainstream of coordinating NPP, but the edits (especially the format) might be helpful, and for keeping the news short and sweet. As there are over 1,000 admins who all have NPP rights, it might be an idea to send it to the admin newsletter list as well. If I am being a nuisance, don't hesitate to let me know - I won't be offended. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, back at a desktop computer. Last week was wife's birthday beach resort vacation where I had only a mobile device and limited time. I noticed your edits to the newsletter. I think another should not go out until at least first week of Aug when we have results of backlog drive, so there is plenty of time to work on that. I asked you in June about sending the newsletter to admins, and you replied that it was not worth it as most thought NPP was beneath them - you seem to have reversed on that.

On NOINDEX, sensing the hesitancy of them to do anything when there is any doubt on the consensus - I asked them to just extend to 365 for now since there was virtually no objection to that. I'm not sure if they will do that, but I don't see any good reason for them not to; all the objections were just over Indefinite, no one advocated to keep at 90. If they do the 365, then we can still do an RFC over indefinite later.

On inactive NPPers, I found this report covering the second half of 2018. I'd like to see this run every month (for the last six and 12 months). Any idea if requesting at Wikipedia talk:Database reports would go anywhere? I spot checked a few of the ones with zero reviews on the 2019 report, and none of them still had NPP, so someone is removing inactives at some point. But it would be good to make removal of more formal. I know that inactive admins get a warning message if they don't perform the minimum number of admin actions. Do you know what does that? Maybe we can piggyback on that and do the same thing - give a friendly reminder after six months and then remove if still no reviews in 12.

Enough for now. MB 04:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Early August sounds fine, but in the interest of keeping the newsletter as short and sweet as possible, it might be more appropriate to post the results of the backlog drive at WT:NPR and link to it.

I haven't really reversed my opinion on admins vs NPP, but there are a few, especially Joe Roe and Rosguill who are very prolific and in times of crisis more admins could possibly be stirred into action if they were aware of it. If I were still an admin I would be doing a whole lot more.

There is no formal process for removing inactive reviewers. It's my fault for not including such a clause when I created the user group and its policy; I just didn't think about it. The problem today is, with the burgeoning trend to demand full blown RfCs for every tiny thing, it would probably be difficult to obtain a consensus - let's not forget that the dozens of hat collectors among the 700 NPPers would all turn out to oppose. You could try just boldly removing some as you suggest, but don't be surprised if you get some pushback. The only argument in favour is that as you say, some other rights have inactivity embedded into their policies. The coordinator of AfC has some strict criteria for inactivity which he manages exceptionally well, but he doesn't need a policy because AfC is not an official process. It's strictly still only a Wikiproject and if push were to come to shove, Wikipedia could live without it; that said however, AfC provides a very important service for user rettention and if I were still a fully active Wikipedian and admin I would be campaigning to get it recognised. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

With admins, I think awareness is really the key. Almost active admins are autopatrolled and NPP rarely comes up at administrative noticeboards... I suspect they often just forget it's there. – Joe (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• I think Joe Roe is probably right. In any case, like New Page Reviewers, the vast majority of admins are barely active. Sending the next newsletter to the admin mailing list just this onece might have some results. One can also make a suggestion to the author of the admin newsletter to add something reminding admins that NPP needs their help, and that according NPR rights, not to forget that PERM now has the 'probation' feature.

Kudpung, it looks like the July admin newsletter has not be sent yet. I just boldly added something. Please take a look [1]

In the draft for the next newsletter, I've expanded slightly on the bit about inactive users. It might be an idea to see if this has any effect before literally removing the rights after a period of non-patrolling. That said, I have spent some time going through that report 2018 activity report and it was very interesting. It shows an alarming near 50% of reviewers not having used the right at all. I think it is an extremely useful Quarry and it would be a very good idea to run one right now for the last 12 months, another immediately after the backlog drive and then request a regular report by the bot as you suggest, perhaps once a month. although doing it manually once a month does not seem to be too onerous. It looks as if Xaosflux has been removing some users who have not been active for 12 months. There doesn't seem to have been any fall out over it and kudos for him to have been doing it. Many of the 0-review editors still have the user right. Some of them are ones who were grandfathered into the new user group when it was created. Some are ones I accorded at PERM when I was an admin. Some are now admins and NPR is bundled with their tools. If we can get a Quarry run done right now - I don't have a clue how to do it - I'll ask Insertcleverphrasehere if he can do one now based on the last 12 months , I don't mind going through it and thoroughly analysing it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I do some cleanups along with other advanced permissions for inactives, but only if someone is 100% inactive on the entire project for 12+ months. If other routine removal criteria have community support adding it to Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Guidelines_for_revocation could be useful. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung and Barkeep49:, this thread has grown and involved many issues and editors. There are other discussions on other issues on other editors TPs. Why don't we have a place for this? Is there any reason why we don't have a NPP coordination TP for things like this that don't belong on the general discussion page? Then there would be better history/archiving. MB 02:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@MB there was consensus in 2018 to limit the number of NPP related talk pages so that the discussion would be centralized and have the most eyes on it. If you think the needs of NPP would be better served undoing that redirect, well 2018 was a long time ago and consensus can change. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I also do not think creating more sub pages is a good idea. Perhaps the best place for purely coordination related discussion would be at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination, but first the redirects made by Usernamekiran would need to be reverted. I cannot imagine why yet another RfC needs to be launched for such a no brainer. In my day I would have just gone ahead and done it, but as I have said many times, there is this silly new trend to launch an RfC if just a comma needs adding somewhere.

@Xaosflux:, in fact I wrote the page at Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Guidelines_for_revocation but I meant to say 'inactive patrolling for 12 months'. I suppose it's not possible to insert that in the text nowadays without calling for a major RfC. I could just modify that sentence. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant. The need is evidenced by the coordination discussions that are happening on various personal TPs. We are clearly having discussions that we don't think belong on the general discussion page, so let's move there. I will revert that redirect. (Novem Linguae just started another one below on backlog drive coordination) MB 03:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, MB. Despite the many years I managed NPP it's more than I would have dared to do from my own initiative in today's climate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung I don't think you'd need a major RfC for that - because the impact is small (there are only 810 people in that group, it still requires admin action on each to change, and it is easily restored). I'd think that if you propose it at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, drop a mention of it in the next newsletter and let it sit for a couple of weeks after that it should be fine, even if at that point the discussion isn't well attended - it was well advertised. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 09:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

"Extreme prejudice" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Extreme prejudice and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 15#Extreme prejudice until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Improve encyclopedic language

Hi @MB, I see you made edits to a page I created Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure. Since then another editor has proposed the page for speedy deletion and a second editor contested. As I am still new, I am still working out how to write in encyclopedic language - could you assist in smoothing out that page? OrgTracker (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Jiminy Cricket

I dropped in to thank you for your efforts at NPP, and saw the loafing shed discussion - couldn't resist. As it turns out, I'm in worse shape than even I could imagine because what I used to be able to do in a single edit took me several. You'll be happy to know it is not a habit but a freak thing, and I have a good excuse, but enough about my goof already. You've been a huge help at NPP, and I just wanted to acknowledge it ... and it only took a single edit to do so. THANK YOU!! Atsme 💬 📧 23:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Please stop changing the captions.

We KNOW it's the freaking lighthouse that's the subject of the article, the only information actually being conbeyed is the DATE, so that all that is necessary to say. Stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, first of all, your captions were not displayed because you used the wrong parameter. Second, I disagree that a year is a sufficient caption. That does not necessarily mean the date of the photo, some people could interpret to be the date the structure was built. Nothing wrong with being clear. MB 01:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not subject to misinterpretation. No one in their right mind thinks that a lighthouse built in the 19th century was constructed in 2022. That's just BS. It's painfully obvious that the date shown is the date of the photograph. Please do not change one of my captions again, or I will bring this issue up to an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you have been around long enough to know that content issues are decided by reaching consensus, not by your fiat. These are not "your" captions; perhaps you should read WP:OWN again. Your threat to bring this issue to an admin is really out of line, and I interpret this as trying to get your way by WP:INTIMIDATION, which is something worthy of being reported (WP:CONDUCT). MB 02:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I've been around long enough know what improves pages and what doesn't What you were doing doesn;t. Do it again and I'll report you, that's the bpttom line Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Karina Lombard

Every single line in the article had at least one source, including the date of birth. If you can't even bother to look before removing days of work, you should not be permitted to work on here. I am simply disgusted by your downright lazy behaviour, and might I suggest you stop being so patronising with the referencing for beginners comment and find yourself an article on "whatever it is you do" for beginners. 48Pills (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Saul Eslake

Hello I am not I understand what is happening with this article. I have sent you some message in the article's talk last month but haven't got any reply. I finally figured out how to send you a talk message directly. Below, I copy pasted what I sent in the article's talk. Some guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Hello, I am not sure what this means. Can you please explain what is wrong and how to fix it? It is indeed my first wiki contribution, and I have not much experience. That is try to focus on one article first. Maryvank (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] I am not familiar with many of the jargon, tags etc too. can you please tell me what does Twinkle mean? Maryvank (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Some guidance regarding this would be greatly appreciated. Maryvank (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Maryvank (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Maryvank, Don't worry about Twinkle, that is just a tool editors used to automate some tasks. What is important are the two tags placed at the top of the article. Have you looked at those and read the information at the blue links in the tags? The article needs more independent sources. Also, do you have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST? If so, you should not be editing this article directly. MB 16:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@MBThank you for replying. I still have no clue how to fix it, but I would like to fix it and improve it. Can you help me or guide me please?

"Have you looked at those and read the information at the blue links in the tags?" I will review this.

"do you have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST?" No I dont have a conflict of interest, I just chose it to start my wiki experience with as there is a lot of materials available on the subject seeing it is archived in the National Trove by the National Library of Australia Maryvank (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@MB Which tags do you mean by "What is important are the two tags placed at the top of the article."?

Can you please quote them for me? I am really lost here Maryvank (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Maryvank, I mean what is in the big box at the top of the article with the big orange border and exclamation point. MB 13:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@MB

Thank you. I have taken a look at those links.

First of all "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." as stated earlier I have no connection to the subject. I chose it to start my wiki experience because it is listed in the National Trove or National Library https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20220406142610/https://www.sauleslake.info/

Secondly, "This biography of a living person relies too much on references to primary sources" I thought that we are meant to have reference to everything we write here so I aimed. Most of the references I used are from the media publications. So I am a bit lost here. Not able to understand what is wrong or how to fix it.

I feel a bit discouraged and I dont want to make it worst by tweaking what I am now totally clueless about.

Can you tell me what is wrong and how to fix it? Maybe give a couple of example - so I can review it based on your example?

Thanks again Maryvank (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Maryvank, yes, everything should be referenced. However, in most cases, references should be independent of the subject. Sources should not be published by or heavily influenced by the subject (such as interviews with little editorial oversight). See this. I have not made a detailed analysis of the sources in the article and did not place this tag, but someone thought it was applicable. I do note that in your time here, you have worked on little else but this article and are responsible for most of its content. It had social media sites in the EL section and many external links within the article. Those are signs that the author is connected and is promoting something. Are you sure you do not have a COI? MB 17:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@MB

I endeavour to include at least 1 reference, in some cases several references, for everything that I stated. Mostly from national TV, Radio, and other publications and news article in Australia's leading media by leading and well respected journalists, clearly not "interviews with little editorial oversight"; as well as from government websites including Parliamentary website; and whenever they are also mentioned in the subject's website i included that as well (i had thought it is a good thing to include as many reference as i can find for each facts - it appears now that this is not a good thing?) And yes indeed i added the social media that is on the subject's website too - again not realising that it they not considered reference but they are making it looks COI.

Once again i wish to reiterate that the subject is listed in National Library pf Australia webarchive https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20220406142610/https://www.sauleslake.info/ Do you think that the National Library of Australia will archive unsubstantiated fraudulent website in the national archive in perpetual?

I am quite taken aback and disheartened with the whole experience. We all have different learning style. I just did not expect very little guidance explanation from the more experience people apart from such judgemental treatment and labelling, admitedly without the appropriate investigation other than someone thought so. Anyone making such unsubstantiated and uninvestigated accussation and labelling could be COI too. Just because someone is more experienced and has been around for longer does not guarantee that he /she does not have a COI too, they could have gained reputation and expertise in navigating and even manipulating the system - but it does not guarantee no COI. At the very least, investigation and analysis of the sources in the article needed before such labelling is made.

"I have not made a detailed analysis of the sources in the article and did not place this tag, but someone thought it was applicable." my effort to seek clarification and hopefully learn from the experience has been met with multiple "Also, do you have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST?" "Are you sure you do not have a COI?" Maryvank (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit

I made an edit you reverted where i added "spus" but i realized it didnt have an "=" sign so i put it back and added an "=" just so i can make the word "kilonetres" spell american instead of british. BMAR (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was intended to be "sp=us", I just saw "spus" was flagged as a unknown unit in the error message. MB 14:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MB. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 30.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

concerning Mosi oa Tunya and Victoria Falls. --Bejnar (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Weigley Mansion article

I created this article with the title: Weigley Mansion (Schaefferstown, PA) because most internet searches for Weigley Mansion return the Wrigley Mansion (home of chewing-gum magnate William Wrigley Jr.).

Why was it changed? Happy-J (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Happy-J, We only put a qualifier in parenthesis to disambiguate when there are two topics with the exact same name. If this mansion is most commonly called Weigley Mansion, then that is what the title should be. See WP:TITLE for more information MB 02:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. However, the exception in this case is the near spelling to the Wrigley Mansion. Since the Wrigley Mansion is well-known internet searches override the Weigley Mansion. Happy-J (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Title display of coordinates

Please avoid this sort of thing (the change to {{coord}} for the river's source in the infobox). An article with multiple sets of coordinates can use title display for only one of them; and for rivers, that one is conventionally the mouth coordinates. I normally wouldn't bring it up, but I seem to recall seeing you make similar changes several other times. Deor (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Deor, I know that only the mouth coords should be displayed at the title. This was just an oversight. I hadn't realized I had apparently done this more than once. I normally check Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags every day or so and would have fixed this myself after seeing it there if you hadn't gotten to it first. But I'll try not to make this mistake in the first place. MB 16:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries; I just wanted you to be aware of the problem if you weren't already. (I check that category every day, too.) Deor (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

how i can create a Wikidata item for the article Tahir Zamakhshari?

i need to create a Wikidata item for the article Tahir Zamakhshari and adding Wikidata references and authority control template Mossab92 (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Mossab92, I am not sure about that. {{Wikidata redirect}} is used when there is no article here; it links a redirect to Wikidata. That is not used on article. The article has an {{authority control}} template, and according to the documentation, it will automatically display if there is authority control information in Wikidata. Is there any there for this article? You could also ask at the WP:HELPDESK. MB 17:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Useful tools

As a coord for NPP you might find this useful. There are admins at WP:PERM who understand NPP, but as for most of these perms (except NPP for some odd reason), it's very much a 'use it or lose it' tool. That said, as I will never completely retire from NPP I would be quite happy to press the button every month. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, I already did this this earlier today. MB 22:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Smart move! 😀 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

• Stop your attack ! That is editing.
• Stop your attack ! Again request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betabum (talk • contribs) 22:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Betabum, you need to assume good faith. I have no idea what you think I did "wrong", but this message is unwarranted. I made two very valid edits to an article that you are currently editing, Vietnam Television Network. I have made no "attacks", but you have made a personal attack here. MB 23:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Valid" not means the attacking while we are editing. You think your internet is strong so you can attack us who's weaker ? He-heh, what's civilized ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betabum (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
• You attacked and destroyed consecutively us who are weaker but you still try saiding that you're blasphemed. Funny thing ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betabum (talk • contribs) 23:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you for some help ! My knowledge is pretty bad. However, I can give many archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betabum (talk • contribs) 08:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP newsletter

1. You are right of course. The sentence is superfluous. There is no point in preaching to the converted. That said, I've decided not to publish my article in the next Signpost. With everything else going on I think it would be overkill. I'll probably do it for the issue after that.

2. Do whatever you think best for the newsletter, you're the coord, I'm just helping out. I think giving it its own page is probably a good idea. It would also mean it would have its own talk page.

3. I'm a bit disappointed with the number of sigs on the open letter, it's not many for 750 newsletters sent - I wonder if this reflects the actual level of interest. Certainly have to wait until the end of the month to see what gives. You may wish to ask the admin newsletter people to add this: The NPP department has prepared an appeal to the WMF for assistance getting Page Curation bugs and features addressed. If you haven’t already done so, you might like to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It’s not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI in case you guys don't know, thanks to the efforts of EpicPupper, our letter has also been on T:CENT for a couple days. Which is why we are getting non-patrollers signing the letter too. The more the merrier I say. I think we are spreading the word just fine, so if the # of signatures seems low, then there are probably other reasons for it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

HMS Tactician (P314)

The HMS Tactician page is not a DAB page - it is a set index page, while your hatnote pointed to HMS Tactician (disambiguation) which is a redirect to the HMS Tactician set index page that you created. The title "HMS xxx" or "USS xxx" is standard for set index pages for ships - if you want to change this I suggest that you go to WP:Ships.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, good point. The main differences is that SIAs are less restrictive than DABs on the content within. As far as linking to them in a hatnote, you never do that for a dab. But I don't anything analogous in WP:SHIPMOSHAT. I believe I have see equivalent redirects, such as HMS Tactician (ship index) before, but if that is not common I guess it is OK to link directly to a ship SIA. MB 21:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Mass message sender granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "massmessage-sender" user right, allowing you to send messages to multiple users at once. A few important things to note:

• Messages should only be sent to groups of users who are likely to be interested in the topic.
• For regular mailings such as those for WikiProjects, localized events, or newsletters, users should be informed of how they can unsubscribe from future mailings.
• The mass messaging tool should never be used for canvassing with the intention of influencing the outcome of discussions.

For more information, refer to the guidance for use. If you do not want mass message sender rights anymore, just let me or any other administrator know and we will remove it. Thank you and happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 20:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Optare & Switch Mobility

An article that been involved with (Optare & Switch Mobility) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (''Optare'' ''Switch Mobility''). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Bhor.sankalp (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Supertalk Mississippi

Thanks for rescuing those queries about redirects. I realised WP:PROD wasn't allowed for redirects then looked at the documentation for the proper procedure and thought I can't do that now on my phone... Someone created a web of promotional redirects amidst a bunch of sockpuppet user ids back in 2010 for these pages. They couldn't create article pages for a bunch of non notable radio presenters and instead created all these redirects and a bunch of user pages presented as if they were articles about notable people.Ed1964 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Ed1964, you should probably comment at the RFD. MB 00:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Oliver Wyman

Hi. Please do not add uncited information to articles, as you did with this edit to Oliver Wyman. I know another editor added that year elsewhere in the article, but that information was not found in the one source cited in the article for the subject's birth details. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I was just doing some format cleanup and was not verifying information already in the article. MB 00:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

New message from CineBrick315

Hello, MB. You have new messages at [[User talk:CineBrick315#Burnie Theatre|CineBrick315's talk page]].
Message added 03:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi there, I'm not entirely sure why the 1966 image of the Burnie Theatre keeps being moved awkwardly to the bottom of the article. There are plenty of examples of Featured Articles where an image is left aligned in the section of the article it represents. For instance in the Canberra or Ben Affleck. CineBrick315 (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

CineBrick315, have you read the links that explain this. MOS:IMAGELOC explains that the default location is left and that images should not interfere with section headings. I even included this quote (A consistent left margin creates a stable anchor for tracking through lines of text making it more readable/accessible) in the edit summary. In this case, the image is too large to fit within the section. In the examples you gave, the images do fit; there is a lot more text in those sections and the next section heading is not pushed out of alignment. If you really want to include that image in the Renovations section, you expand that text there, or shrink the image size. MB 04:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport

added a link pointing to Guandong

Songshan Airport

added a link pointing to Songshan District

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP Awards for 2018-2020

MB, See if you want to re-kindle this discussion, although there don't seem to be many supporters of the idea. I'm not sure if starting a new discussion about the same topic at WT:NPP/R will be helpful or not. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Latin rhythmic hexameter

You kindly reviewed my article Latin rhythmic hexameter a few days ago; but earlier, another reviewer, before the article was finished, added a tag to say the examples were "indiscriminate, excessive or irrelevant", and advised me to add more descriptive text. Personally I think the examples (there are a dozen or so) are just fine and are in fact the whole point of the article, which cannot be understood without them. I have also added a lot more descriptive text since the tag was added, so perhaps its relevance could be reviewed. I'd be very grateful if so. Kanjuzi (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC) – Someone has done it now. Thanks. Kanjuzi (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

YGM

There are two. Need your attention fairly urgently. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter

Hello, MB,

It would be great if the individuals involved in composing this letter and sending out the mail notice could sign these items so it can be seen who the authors are. It would be better to list several names if this is a group project (the "NPP" team) than have these writings be anonymous or have to go into the page history and track down who wrote what. I mean, did you compose the alert that went out by mass-message? Please include your signature next time. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Liz, OK. The alert was written by Kudpung and myself, and that is in a comment in the message (you have to look at the source to see it). I was following the way it has been done previously with other NPP newsletters & messages, but will keep this in mind in the future. MB 00:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK (I'll stand corrected, of course), none of the several pages here on en.Wiki or on Meta about mass message sending state a policy of requiring the sender's or the author's names to be displayed. A courtesy precedent is usually followed however, by providing both of those sets of information in commented-out (<!-- -->) text which is clearly visible by viewing in edit mode. Even the inclusion of an opt-out feature, while recommended, does not appear to be required by policy. See other regularly issued bulletins such as , for example the Administrators' newsletter, and RFA 2021 Completed (by an 'individual' admin), and Growth team newsletter (by the WMF), and ArbCom Elections voter message (apparently sent by a bureaucrat), to name but just a few. Liz, those of us who maintain essential important processes do our best here in the interests of this encyclopedia. It would be nice if you could please consider being a little less terse in the wording of your comments. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)