User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 10

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Operation Bulmus 6

I responded at the user's talk.

Regarding the Battle of Green Island

Regarding the Battle of Green Island, Ami Ayalon, the commando commander says to an Israeli that of the 40 people who actually fought on the island, only 2, were not injured or killed, and the goal was to occupy the Green Island on the channel of the Hudson Union Society. This video Израильский эсминец Эйлат (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ami Ayalon, former Head of Israel's Secret Service Talks About Operation Bulmus 6. That's the name of the video Израильский эсминец Эйлат (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I did the same in compliance with the neutral sources on Wikipedia, especially since this is a confession from the commando commander to the Israeli himself Израильский эсминец Эйлат (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

– wbm1058 (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the Battle of the Green Island Blomus 6, you very much agree with the inclusion of Ami Ayalon's confession. Modern event numbering (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:පණ්ඩුශාක්‍ය රජතුමා

Hello, Wbm1058. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:පණ්ඩුශාක්‍ය රජතුමා, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

"DYK hall of fame" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect DYK hall of fame and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 20#DYK hall of fame until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

ADR for Suez

Hi Wbm. Not sure I follow the issue with this rcat. Cleaning up the Suez (company, 1858–2008) situation is on my to-do list at the moment—will require an AWB/JWB run, a retargeting to the DAB, a month or two to make sure there's no residual pageviews, and then an RfD to delete—and maintaining ADR tags on any redirects related to that incorrect name will help in fixing it. I do regret that it happened at all; another user moved the page to mirror the frwiki demarcation, silently usurping the PTOPIC of Suez (company). I retargeted that to the DAB per standard practice and set about fixing the 100+ backlinks. I erred in not looking closely enough into the other user's titling decision. I saw that they'd used the correspong title to frwiki, but I overlooked that frwiki covers both Suez Canal Company and Suez (company, 1997–2008) in a single article, noticing that only about halfway through my dabfix efforts. All of the 1858 links do now point to the same place those links pointed to before all of this, but through an incorrect/unprintworthy redirect, yes. If your allusion to a "mess" is asking me to clean up the 1858 situation sooner rather than later, I'll get right on that, but I don't follow the issue with the ADR tag. I've seen dozens of cases before where foo-bar is an ADR for foo–bar. I think one of the AnomieBOTs tags such things out of course, in fact. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Backlinks

Fixed. [1] On second thought, the 1858 redirect may be useful for cross-wiki categorization with frwiki, so I think I'll leave it as a redirect to the DAB, although if someone else wants to take it to RfD I'd be happy to discuss it there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin. Took me a second to realize you were talking about "avoided double redirects" rather than American depositary receipts. <wink> I'm not a fan of that tag, which I feel causes more trouble than it's worth, but I suppose it might apply if you view Suez (company) as truly not an ambiguous term but as a set index of all companies ever named "Suez" between 1858 and the present day. It might actually be helpful to have a single page explaining all of the corporate contortions (reconfiguration, mergers, etc.) from the beginning to the end as it's become quite confusing. I saw that the French editor initiated this storm and then you figured out what was happening, as am I. I think the difference in French and English views is problematic as we don't have a one-to-one correspondence in articles allowing Wikidata to link the different language articles all together.

Suez Canal Company infobox says it went defunct in 1997 but really it went "defunct" shortly after 1956 when Egypt nationalized the canal. The French changed the company name because the nature of the company's business changed significantly. From the French view, it doesn't appear that two equals merged to form a brand new company in 1997, rendering both predecessors defunct, but the company that started out by building the canal and then changed its business model after canal nationalization acquired another company in 1997 and continued on until it was acquired by another company in 2008. In this view, the Suez Canal Company is a subtopic of Suez (company, 1858–2008) which goes into detail about the years up to 1956 that the French don't. The French focus on their domestic water operations, while the English are more concerned with transport of goods through the canal which are destined for delivery to English-speaking countries. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem like a bit of a mess, just on a content level. In all the dabfixing I found a number of cases saying [[Suez (company)|Suez]] has operated the concession since 1975 or similar, with sources referring to all three iterations of the company. Not to mention the somewhat confusing delineation, which imply that Suez stopped existing from 2008 to 2015, which it did not; there were actually two companies with "Suez" in the name in that timespan. There's also a lot of cross-article inconsistency. The article on Suez (company, 1997–2008) traces the company's history back to Algemeene Nederlandsche Maatschappij ter begunstiging van de volksvlijt in 1822 (unsourced), while the article on its successors and predecessors say nothing of the sort. And then lots of bad piping in the topic area that has led to things like this, and to the obscuring of redlinks like Lyonnaise des Eaux [fr]. So I dunno. Do you think a SIA at Suez (company) would be worthwhile? Would allow for a brief history section and some discussion of predecessors and spin-offs, in addition to those three. Or could do something like List of predecessors and successors to the Suez Canal Company.

Also, FWIW, I'm a fan of ADR tags, because they help avoid situations where, say, a misspelling of a song's name gets left behind as a redirect to the parent album after the song's article is created. From time to time I check CAT:AVOID2RUPDATE and clear out the ones that accumulate, and often it's things that might have gone unnoticed for years otherwise. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Silence Day (India)

Hello, Wbm1058,

I'm not sure what exactly is going on with this article, but the page has an AFD tag to a previous discussion that concluded the page should be deleted. Did you mean to start a new AFD discussion? Or should this article be deleted as a CSD G4? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I history-merged the content that was buried under the disambiguation page. It's necessary to restore the page to do that. I will re-delete it shortly. No need for a G4, I will take care of it. wbm1058 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Sappony

Sappony is current an article about the state-recognized tribe. Why did you delete its talk page? I'm going to rebuild. Please look at the article and please don't delete the talk page again. Thank you, Yuchitown (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

Yuchitown, the talk page was simply #REDIRECT Talk:Saponi, a redirect to the talk page of a different article. Feel free to create a new talk page from scratch. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I just did. Look at the article Sappony. Yuchitown (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

Mechanics Institutes of Australia

Thanks for this. As far as AWB was concerned it was just an article in a list :-) Neils51 (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Marie D. Jones

The article Marie D. Jones has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of WP:RS. Most artistic creations do not appear to be of significant merit (failing WP:CREATIVE)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BriefEdits (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Movenotice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Movenotice. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion archived at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March#20 March 2022. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Sunflower

You recently moved Sunflower to Helianthus. Please could you move it back as per the recent move discussion. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I see what's happened now. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

John Lott mess

Greetings, wbm1058. Please reconsider the position you took regarding the title of the John Lott article. You went ahead with a choice that was clearly not supported by a consensus. If this had come from just another editor, it would have been identified as a serious breach of guidelines and the editor possibly reported. But you're an administrator, and an experienced one at that. We had as near a consensus as we could possibly have in "gun rights advocate" (not my choice, but I agreedn for what it's worth), and all that remained really was the title change. Perhaps you mistook my joking reference as to who would enforce the change, i.e. to avoid another technical mistake by me, etc. You were certainly not called to resolve some outstanding impasse; there was none such. Your intervention, was, to put be clearly, a case of WP:SUPERVOTE. So, again, I ask you in good faith to reconsider. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Underscores

Been noticing that the relists on the WP:RM page no longer sport the short underscores beneath the "Discuss" links. Hope this modification is on purpose and not "something gone awry". Curious, though as to why you'd remove them, because they were a telltale relist at-a-glance, and seemed useful to me. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 02:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: see User talk:RMCD bot/Archive 3#BOt adds underline. The table is better for finding relists at-a-glance. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that! Just very glad it was intentional and not an "uh-oh" type thing. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 12:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Mud Coffee for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mud Coffee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mud Coffee until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

You were the article's last major contributor, back in 2014, so I figured you should know. Tisnec (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mud Coffee (2nd nomination) – there was an earlier discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd missed that. Tisnec (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"Outdoor products" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Outdoor products and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 3#Outdoor products until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Question

If a user is site banned for advocacy, socking, or disruptive behavior, aren't we still supposed to remove their edits, especially controversial ones? Atsme 💬 📧 16:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme: Sorry, very belated reply. This area is not really in my wheelhouse, but I suppose if I had been asked this question in my request for adminship, I would have been obligated to answer if I wanted to maximize my chances of passing. So, I'm looking at Wikipedia:Banning policy for the answer. WP:SBAN says that an editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia. So if you see edits made by a site-banned editor in violation of their ban, yes they may be reverted. WP:BRV says anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand). However, beware of WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED, which says Wikipedia's hope for banned editors is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them. So I would be wary of reverting any edits they made before they were banned, simply because they were banned. This could potentially run you afoul of WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED. If you can find another reason their edits should be reverted, such as vandalism, or non-neutral point-of-view, then OK I think individual edits may be reverted if done while giving a standard rationale. But don't do mass-reversions with the rationale "edits by a currently-banned editor". That's my interpretation of the banning policy. Hope that helps, wbm1058 (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yinhu station

Hi Wbm1058,

I noticed that I had converted Yinhu station into a disambiguation page recently.

The following pages link to this:

Thank you.

Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

No, the conversion was done by GoAheadFan95 – wbm1058 (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see. "I noticed that I". Heh. Disambiguation of these train stations can be annoyingly complex because of the design of the templates used in infoboxes and such. wbm1058 (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you follow the instructions at Module:Adjacent stations#For editors? The Bagualing station data module appears to be Module:Adjacent stations/Shenzhen Metro (SZM) wbm1058 (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:North Caucasian languages should be re-split

Hi there - I'm writing regarding your closure of the merge request for the North Caucasian languages template. User:DA1's statement to the effect that Having three separate Templates for the same broader language family is redundant and unhelpful as a navbox. See existing and more established precedents such as Template:Semitic languages and Template:Turkic languages is fundamentally disingenuous. Unlike either the Semitic languages or the Turkic languages, the "North Caucasian languages" as a familial unit have not been accepted as consensus among Caucasologists and the proposal continues to be controversial (see e.g. Johanna Nichols's Nikolaev and Starostin's "North Caucasian Etymological Dictionary" and the Methodology of Long-Range Comparison: an assessment, paper presented at the 10th Biennial Non-Slavic Languages (NSL) Conference, Chicago, 8–10 May 1997). A more apposite comparison for the North Caucasian languages would be Nostratic or Altaic, similarly controversial higher-level proposed family nodes which rightly do not have merged templates. Though having the separate NWC and NEC templates might be considered "redundant and unhelpful" as User:DA1 claims, the merged NC template goes beyond that into "misleading and perhaps even wrong". If I could, I'd like to request a re-evaluation of the merge decision, and a reversion to the separate templates if possible. Thanks very much :) 58.179.70.149 (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a confusing situation. That "merge request" was actually a requested move. While that requested move was still open, a "technical request" to revert a previously not-discussed move was submitted HERE. Another admin executed that "technical move request" without closing the requested move on the talk page. I patrol for open move requests where the request has been fulfilled without closing the discussion, and simply closed that discussion without second-guessing the judgement of the other administrator.

Editor participation here seems too limited to say there is really any consensus for anything. However templates are not the same as articles so I don't believe that the WP:Content forking guideline applies to templates. However I generally do feel that page moves which change the scope of a page are not a good idea, and that applies to both articles and templates. The three templates up for review, as I understand the situation, are:

Template:Northeast Caucasian languages – 45 transclusion(s) found.
Template:Northwest Caucasian languages – 8 transclusion(s) found.
Template:North Caucasian languages – 54 transclusion(s) found.

I see no reason why we can't have all three templates. My personal view is that navigation templates should generally be narrow in scope, limited to relatively few articles which are very closely related. If you have so many pages listed in a template that you feel the need to collapse the template then you have too many and have defeated the reason for having the template in the first place: ease of navigation means not inconveniencing readers by making them click "show" and then work to search through the long list of pages to find the one they might be interested in. Taken to an extreme we would have not just Template:North Caucasian languages but Template:Caucasian languages or Template:Asian languages or, heaven forbid, Template:World languages. I'll split these back out to where the scope of the templates match their contents. If that's a problem then, rather than follow up here on my talk or start another requested move or merge discussion, it would be best to take this to WP:Templates for discussion. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Requested move/end

Template:Requested move/end has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Restore missing bot edits

My request at WP:RFHM was removed without action, so now I am asking you.

Talk:Sarray has two deleted RMCD bot edits that were mistakenly moved from Sarray. Could you please get those two bot edits back to the history of the article Sarray? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive343#Lost the history in a messed up move HELP!. OK. wbm1058 (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Need help undoing a closure for relisting

I'm trying to undo a faulty closure (it was my own) on 2023 Nigerian general election, but when I went to WP:RM/CD to relist it manually, it warned me that RMCD bot will override attempts to edit the page. Should I still try manually relisting? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Relist by editing Talk:2023 Nigerian general election#Requested move 1 June 2022 per the instructions given at WP:Requested moves#Relisting a requested move. I don't follow what the problem is, it looks like you've done that correctly. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

What I was doing was resubsting {{requested move}} and then nuking obvious evidence that I had done that, which I realized was silly since {{RM relist}} was the way to go. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:R for convenience

A pointlessly vague Rcat template. See also User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 11#Template:R from unsuitable title

Error?

Why should this result in an error per Special:Diff/913468459/977902992? What was that change trying to accomplish? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: It's telling you not to put that template on that page, because Nira Tandon, which I just tagged with {{R from misspelling}}, is not an article, it's a redirect. Template:R from remote talk page is only intended for placement on redirects to centralized talk pages, i.e. Talk pages where the content of multiple articles is discussed. There are just a few pages tagged this way: see here For example, the content of the article List of Intel Pentium M (Yonah)-based Xeon microprocessors is discussed on Talk:List of Intel Xeon processors rather than Talk:List of Intel Pentium M (Yonah)-based Xeon microprocessors, which is where the template is placed. – wbm1058 (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] Okay, well can you clarify that in the template documentation at least? The difference between {{R from remote page}} and {{R for convenience}} has always been kind of hazy for me because it isn't really explained anywhere. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

{{R for convenience}} was boldly created way back on 1 December 2004 by Sgeo, an editor who hasn't been active for a long time (their newest 50 edits date back to February 2007). They posted news of their creation the same day on a now inactive section of the village pump:

Template:R for convenience

Should be obvious. --Sgeo | Talk 22:59, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

But isn't. What the heck is "the main article"? What redirects do you feel this should be attached to? And why? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:29, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

The village pump notice was posted a minute after Sgeo used their new template on AIDS myths, where it is still the only Rcat template. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the only instance where the template's creator used their own template. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Template talk:R for convenience. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Criteria to mass remove an r-cat?

What is the criteria you are using to mass remove {{R for convenience}}? This was a good removal given your recent bold change to the rcat (which was long overdue in my opinion). However, that reasoning is not shared with [2][3][4][5].. so I have to wonder what you were actually doing here..? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: this is belated follow-up to an issue that you raised back in December 2020. See #Template:R for convenience.

Category:Redirects for convenience now just has a few dozen members left, mostly in user-space. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] Dang, I must losing it then. Sorry to bother you about it lol –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Those missing templates

Hi Wbm1058

I'm guessing that it was this edit[6] by you which produced the flurry of Category:ISO 639 name xyz-type categories currently listed at Special:WantedCategories. Is that right?

If so, is there any guidance on how to create them? It would be handy to have them cleared before the next update of Special:WantedCategories brings in another flood of new stuff. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Right, this was my clunky attempt to solve a problem. See Template talk:ISO 639 name#Return empty string for codes not on the list. Sorry about cluttering up WantedCategories; that was a side-effect that I didn't think of. These categories are not actually supposed to be created, but rather templates with the same name. The idea was to avoid degrading the reader experience by showing redlink-templates, but provide an easier way for patrolling editors to find the problem. I guess I should revert that, but it would be nice to replace it with a better solution, if we can come up with one. wbm1058 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my post was a bit unclear. What I meant was: any guidance on how to create the templates? I'd be happy to help if I knew how.

This looks fine as a way of getting a list of needed templates. But now that Special:WantedCategories has created the list, it would be helpful if the template could stop generating these categories, prferably before the next update (which is likely on 11 April or 12 April).

I have gotten a it of practice at quickly grabbing a categ list from the oddly-formatted Special:WantedCategories, so I made a list of the ISO 639 categs, at User:Wbm1058/ISO 639 categs. I hope that helps; if it's a nuisance, pls delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, this is kind of like the blind leading the blind to repair issues caused by other blind. There is Category:Articles containing unknown ISO 639 language template, which was created by Jonesey95. Then there is also Category:Lang-x templates with other than ISO 639. Some editors have used these "language" templates for dialects of languages that do not have ISO 639 codes, thus the attempts of templates to look up ISO 639 codes fail with errors implying an ISO 639 template needs to be created. Well, there is none to be created. My solution for cases like that is edits like THIS and THIS. We need to sort these dialect "languages" out from the real languages that actually have ISO 639 codes where a template really does need to be created. I'm not an expert in any of this, and got involved with it when the new Category:Pages with template loops was created, and that snagged the poor design of these "language" templates. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 154#Category:Pages with template loops for background on what led me into this rabbit-hole. Template:Language with name and Template:Lang were never intended to be used for dialects, but how can we expect editors other than the ones who designed these templates to know that? – wbm1058 (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What an almighty mess. My immediate question is to ask what purpose this whole system serves, and whether any of this necessary? I know little about the topic, so I make no attempt to try answering that pair of questions ... but I do think that when something gets so complex, it's time to re-evaluate the cost-benefit ratios.

I'm afraid that I have neither the skills to get that deep into these templates nor the inclination to do so, so I think i'd better withdraw my offer to help. Sorry!

In the meantime, please could you revert the edit which populated the categs? It does seem to have served its purpose, and the ongoing slog of clearing the 100–200 daily additions to Special:WantedCategories is impeded by these categs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

BrownHairedGirl, you are wise to move on to somewhere that makes more sense. The whole lang template system is a bit of a mess and in need of a rethink. In the meantime, I am slowly (five weeks so far) clearing out the errors and creating needed templates based on Category:Articles containing unknown ISO 639 language template. I should be done in a couple of weeks.

In answer to your "what purpose this whole system serves", tagging text with {{lang}} can affect how the enclosed text is rendered. It also adds a tracking category, which may be useful to some editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure edits like this are the optimal solution – whether something is a language or a dialect is irrelevant, we want the text string to be formatted properly and bypassing {{Language with name}} doesn't help with that. I've had a look at User:Wbm1058/ISO 639 categs and most of these appear to either contain typos (in which case they need to be fixed in the specific pages that use the lang template), or to be of the type aaa-Bbb, which is the format for the language (aaa) + script(Yyyy) combination. Pinging Erutuon whom I've seen working on this. – Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I am working on Category:Articles containing unknown ISO 639 language template and expect to have it mostly cleared out in a few days. When I started a month ago, there were something like 2,000 pages in the category. It's down to 332 right now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I would replace all the templates with modules. The module could check to see if the code string is valid character-wise – either xyz or xyz-Abcd – using regular expressions. It could also check if the script and language codes are correct using the MediaWiki language library or a data module that lists language codes. And it could create linked language names by adding the articles as an entry in the data module. Wiktionary does all this language-related stuff using modules (see wikt:Module:languages, wikt:Module:scripts, wikt:Module:script utilities). I've begun such a module at Module:Language (see also Module:Language/scripts/data), though it does not currently do everything mentioned here. — Eru·tuon 18:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. I see that you have already seen this discussion from six months ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If you need any help, you can ask for it at Wikipedia:Lua/To do. While I've self-taught myself enough PHP to support two bots and even write one from scratch, I've yet to make time to study Lua, so I can only do so much with that. wbm1058 (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Update: Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 14#ISO 639 name from code templates the ISO 639 name templates were all deleted two years ago – so I can clear this from my unresolved issues list. I just belatedly looked into this after I noticed this 17 May 2022 edit to my sandbox, which was populating Category:ISO 639 name template errors. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The truth about the 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya riots

I’ve been trying to edit the article 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya riots. However some other editors keep reverting to the original content. The original article is historically inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading. I’ve added the correct information along with links to references. Please fix this issue and ensure the article is correct and factual. Thank you CamillRose (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I've looked briefly at Talk:1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya riots but sorry, this is a topic with which I'm completely unfamiliar and I'm not sure I can help given the effort I'd need to make to get up to speed on the topic and the time needed to address other things on my Wiki to-do list. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Clovermoss. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Sub-Gaussian norm, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Clovermoss (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

This was a mistake. I meant to mark it as reviewed and didn't realize it already had been. I undid my unreviewed thing... I apologize. Clovermoss (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Special:Diff/1100036332 – thanks. I had just restored the version that was there previously and did not notice that it included a piped target before hitting publish. DanCherek (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

– wbm1058 (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Erastus B. Wolcott talk page

Looking at the Erastus B. Wolcott talk page, (not the statue article) I saw that it had been deleted per G6 and I was wondering if you could let me know why exactly it was deleted. Thanks! Heeps of Wiki (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The single revision of that page was

#REDIRECT [[Talk:Erastus B. Wolcott (statue)]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
}}

Feel free to re-create the page as a page for discussing the person rather than as a redirect to the statue. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you. Heeps of Wiki (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Happy Seventh Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Wbm1058 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Grey's Anatomy home video releases

The article List of Grey's Anatomy home video releases has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks notability. Article has no text at all, is mainly sourced to webshops, lists rather trivial info. We are WP:NOT a database of DVD releases.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Grey's Anatomy home video releases for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Grey's Anatomy home video releases is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Grey's Anatomy home video releases until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Women in Religion

Hi, I see that you moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher Education to Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education. Would you be able to help or at least advise on the move of Wikipedia:WikiProject 1000 Women in Religion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Religion? There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Talkpage template issue for WikiProject Women in Religion (was WikiProject 1000 Women in Religion). TSventon (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon: My higher-education move was per my closing of this 29 February 2020 requested move. I've just moved all of the project's sub-pages and edited Template:WikiProject Women in Religion to remove "1000" (except from the file name of File:1000 women in religion 2019 update.png).

@BrownHairedGirl: your help with the slightly complex task of systematically renaming the the project's assessment categories to turn all the women in red links categories currently listed in the error message on Template:WikiProject Women in Religion blue again would again be greatly appreciated. Hint to our public-relations department: BHG deserves at least as much attention from the press (if she wants it) as the guy who ranks #1 on this list has gotten, given that this task is well within her pay grade, but above his. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Wbm1058. Many thanks very much for your kind words. But no publicity, thanks. I had two phases in my life when I got a lot of publicity for my work. Both were fun rides at the time, but I am happy to have left both of them many years behind me. I enjoy the renewed freedom of anonymity.

I will look into this template issue now. I reckon it will be either a quick fix or a long slog. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Wbm1058 and @BrownHairedGirl:. For future reference, how should project members find some one who knows how to do a renaming properly? TSventon (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon: I would suggest a shout at WP:VPT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: there is a forest of categories to rename, and then templates to update. I am working on it, and should be finished within an hour unless I get distracted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, after these 69 edits, I think it's all done.

If I have missed anything, please gimme a shout. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Part of the problem I wrote about at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Talkpage template issue for WikiProject Women in Religion (was WikiProject 1000 Women in Religion) (what WikiProject name is viewable on an article's talkpage) seems to be fixed. What is not fixed is what's viewable when you're on the article's talkpage and you click Rater. Using the example of Rachel Isaacs, when you click Rater, you don't see WikiProject Women in Religion (though you do see it on her talkpage). I wanted to see what would happen if I tried to add WP Women in Religion and it doesn't show up (nor does 1000 Women in Religion). Would be appreciative of your help if you're able to resolve this, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a file maintained by a bot: User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/1000 Women in Religion. I did not move this file.

The bot has now, on its daily run, created the new file User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Women in Religion.

No pages link to User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Women in Religion yet. I'll update the pages that link to User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/1000 Women in Religion so that they link to the new table. Might also history-merge the old table into the new one. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: I hadn't used WP:RATER before, so I installed it and successfully used it to edit Talk:Rachel Isaacs to assess "|importance=Low" as the tool suggested or recommended. I see that you also successfully used the tool to make an edit before mine. If, after I fixed the links to the file maintained by a bot, as described above, you are still seeing problems with the Rater tool or anything else, let me know and describe the difference between expected and actual behavior in as much detail as you can. Bugs in Rater would be reported at WT:RATER, but the author of that tool has not been active on Wikipedia recently. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Pardon the interruption...

Would you mind taking a look at U:BrownHairedGirl's activity on my talk and on this RM, and see if it violates the terms of her listing on WP:EDRC? I'm trying to avoid taking this directly to ANI, so if you agree the actions are in violation, would you either take the required action or bring it up on ANI yourself? Much obliged! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

For convenience, a more direct link: Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community § BrownHairedGirl. I've reviewed the relevant discussions and believe I can effectively deal with the situation by re-closing the requested move. If the noted behavior-skating on editing restrictions persists after my close, I would support a block for that, but then at that point I would be involved. I'll work on my closing rationale in the next hour or two. It won't just be a one-liner. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Good enough. Thanks. It does seem that she's quieted down once the Edit Restriction was mentioned, so things may be fine for now. But it will be nice to know that someone uninvolved will keep an eye on things. Oh, and it shouldn't get closed for a few days yet, so you have some time to work on the rationale. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've slept on it and given it more time. If I see further non-behavior-skating discussion started, I'll let it run, but per Wikipedia:Requested moves § Relisting a requested move "When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion." I'm currently juggling too many balls and to avoid dropping one I'm going to be working last-in, first-out. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Roger that. And good point. Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: I note with disappointment that your response to my civil complaint on your talk about your wholly inadequate close was not to accept it as WP:ADMINACCT, but instead to sneakily go behind my back and carefully avoid the courtesy of a ping to me while you ask another admin to sanction me.

Until now, I had assumed that you acted in good faith: that you were genuinely unware of the standards which are required in closing RM discussions, and that having been alerted by multiple editors, you were working in good faith to remedy the damage which you had done. However, good faith editors operate transparently, and this sneaky effort to have me sanctioned removes my ability to AGF. Shame on you, and shame on @Wbm1058, who both omitted to notify me of this discussion, and who proceeded to close the RM despite having been canvassed here. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: WP:ANI has as part of its advice Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly. I took that advice. Be disappointed if that's how you are, but I do not wish to engage with you. UtherSRG (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: interesting, so that's how you found me! First time I've seen that tool. So, as an admin my takeaway from that is that if I want to "skip the drama" I should stop being so active on Wikipedia! Someone should take that tool to ANI for canvassing. LOL — FYI just recently we had a much more pleasant interraction. wbm1058 (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

You go write up an ANI on that tool, and I'll make some popcorn to watch the drama. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

wbm.... My apologies for getting you caught up in all of this. I saw those edits. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I note that Wbm1058 has removed[7] from this page my reply[8] to UtherSRG, with the edit summary "my talk page is not the proper forum in which to raise administrator accountability issues with any administrator other than myself. WP:ADMINABUSE".

This is problematic. It was not my choice to use this venue for ADMINACCT; UtherSRG chose to raise the matter here, and it involves me. Secondly, my concerns relate to both UtherSRG and Wbm1058, both of whom failed not notify me. Feel free to close this discussion if you want to, but please restore my comment as part of the record.

I have no wish to continue this discussion any further, but UtherSRG has misrepresented the situation and by challenge to those misrepresentations should not be expunged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a dummy edit

Re Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. No harm, no foul, I guess. I just hit the space bar and saved before I caught my fingers. Didn't know it would be noticed. Thanks. — Maile (talk)

State funerals RM

Hi Wbm1058

Thank you for closing the State funerals RM, and for providing an extended rationale. You clearly put a lot of work into this.

Much of your extended rationale seemed sound, until it came to the point where you pronounced on consistency. As you rightly noted, I nominated 40 articles together, to ensure consistency: that was the complete set of all articles whose title began "Death and state funeral of". Yes, there is one article with a similar title, but Death and two state funerals of Kalākaua is an unusual situation of two funerals, so it will inevitably be an exception to any rule, and would require special consideration. Your claim that omitting the two-funeral exception breaks consistency among the 40 single-funeral articles seems to be at best jesuitical.

Secondly, I unequivocally and completely reject your complaint about the volume of my posts on the page, and in particular your threat to label that as uncivil and invoke sanctions. That is most unpleasant.

I note that your close makes no criticism or reproach whatsoever of the many editors whose posts made no reference at all to any policy or guidelines, contrary to WP:RMCOMMENT. That is a strange and troubling omission, particularly when your analysis of policy supports my application of it, and especially when you single my comments out for criticism. It seems quite perverse to instead criticise the editor who did repeatedly point to policy.

Criticising me for critiquing policy-free or fact-faulty comments is bad enough, but threatening me with sanctions for it is very nasty. It's not just nasty to me personally; it's a nasty threat to the whole community's ability to scrutinise contributions to consensus-forming discussions about the encyclopedia, because a glib falsehood can be asserted in one line, but deconstructing it can require many paragraphs. Applying a word- or character count threshold, as you did, has the effect of structurally biasing the discussion in favour of glib falsehoods, and against scrutiny.

See e.g. Bearcat's false 188-character assertion what they don't share is the common element of lying in state. That's central to the definition of a state funeral, and not central to the definition of a ceremonial-but-non-state funeral

I don't know whether Bearcat deliberately stated a falsehood, or whether he asserted something which he believed to be true but didn't check. And it doesn't really matter which applies, because either way it was a demonstrable falsehood -- not a misinterpretation, but an unequivocally false assertion. My reply[9] setting out the evidence was 1,826 characters, almost ten times as long as the original, and unavoidably so because setting out evidence takes a lot of word and links.

So, you reproach and threaten me because I posted to repeatedly challenge the lack of a policy basis, and because I posted at length to disprove a falsehood asserted by an admin whose failures here were a failure in their duty uphold high standards.

I really really really beg of you to stop and take a long hard look at what this does to Wikipedia. I cannot know your intention, and I will not attempt to guess; but the effect of what you did here is deter any editor from challenging flawed contributions to a consensus-forming discussion. The effect of what you did here is to signal to editors that despite WP:RMCOMMENT they can completely ignore policy and guidelines, without fear of reproach, and without risk of any de-weighting of their comments.

And above all, the effect of what you did here is to signal to editors that even if they are an admin bound by policy to uphold high standards, they can try to sway a consensus-forming discussion by forcibly asserting demonstrable falsehoods, and failing to retract them ... and that whoever disproves the falsehood may be threatened for verbosity.

Whatever considerations lead to your approach to discussion, its effect is to impede critical debate and lower the quality of decision-making, by reducing scrutiny of unevidenced, policy-free assertions and of false assertions of fact. That is absolutely no way to build an encyclopedia; in fact it could be a very effective part of a plan to undermine the encyclopedia, if that was someone's goal. (For avoidance of doubt, I must say explicitly that I do not believe or suspect that your goal is to undermine the encyclopedia.)

So I want to say unequivocally that I will pay no heed whatsoever to your threat, other than to note its damaging effect on critical debate and to say that I personally will not change my conduct in response to such anti-intellectual bullying.

Best wishes, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the best wishes. I'm not going to further respond to your message directly here, but have just indirectly commented at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:OTRS topicon

Template:OTRS topicon has been nominated for merging with Template:VRT topicon. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

No consensus – wbm1058 (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 19 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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Merry Christmas! wbm1058 (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Wbm1058: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

From my family to yours: Merry Christmas! TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation)

Can you look into the "Update Redirect" discussion on the Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation) page. I don't like where User:Shaded0 is taking this discussion.--Limpscash (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you look at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RAF910 discussion where User:Shaded0 is making some very serious accusations. He tried to ping you but I don't think it worked.--Limpscash (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent articles on the noticeboard page and the talk page discussions. I am at a bit of a loss on what the correct action should be taken next. The stated points seem to be reasonable arguments, but I feel like this argument is going to keep going in circles. Take a look also at Talk:Colt AR-15. Does it make sense continue pursing AR-15 arguments, seek additional input? I feel like I might have not too much to add here besides another vote for consensus, but any further discussion seems that it will likely further inflame opinions rather than coming to some sort of resolution. Shaded0 (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Shaded0, I'm not sure what your goals are here, i.e. specifically what you would like to accomplish. I added the {{WikiProject content advice}} template at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms § Guidelines since that advice section co-mingles both style and content advice. My sense is that you are more concerned with content than style, so it might be helpful to spit that section into separate style and content sections, if you want to focus on one but not the other. Looking at Category:WikiProject content advice I see that there are relatively few topic areas where such content-specific advice is given. I think the recent changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms § Criminal use were not well thought out and too-hastily pushed through. I prefer the more longstanding previous version of that advice, and would have opposed this change. I'd like to revert to the former version. I suppose the way to overrule that local consensus would be to appeal to a wider audience with a request for comment. I'm not sure there is a well-trodden path for such appeals; it's something I'm not that familiar with as I don't often engage in high-level content debates. In any event, the Bushmaster XM-15 article still has Notoriety, Sandy Hook, and Legality sections, so if this advice-change was an attempt to remove all that in favor of nothing more than "see also" links, the advice change hasn't stuck in that article. Given that, I'm not sure how much time it's worth to pursue this. wbm1058 (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

HEADS UP!

We are being targeted by someone call Lightbreather on Twitter. Please see the sites below:

https://twitter.com/Lightbreather?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

https://lightbreather.com/wikipedias-promotion-of-pro-gun-lingo-more-about-ar-15-v-modern-sporting-rifle-e3b6a7625621

I'm not sure what to make of this. Is this the same Wikipedia User:Lightbreather that has been blocked?--Limpscash (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I had not seen that blog. I've heard of LB but am not familiar with the details of her block. She says she's a Cronkite School alumna, and I can believe that as it shows in the quality of her blog. I welcome good criticism, and she makes some good points. No comment on the merits of her arbitration case, but, in general it's a shame when we lose editors like this for whatever reason.

Here's the 36 edits I made on November 7 related to this. It's not immediately apparent from that how I became involved in this. I patrol Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review. This 6 November 2017 edit which changed the target of AR-15 caused Colt AR-15 to land in that category by rendering its hatnote {{Redirect|AR-15}} untruthful. When I work that category, I determine how to fix it; usually that's done with only an edit or two – it's an unusual case where I end up making as many as 36 edits to correct a navigation structure that's so badly munged. LB helps explain how it got that way. This was just the beginning of my involvement in this topic area to date. A couple days later, in respose to #Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation), I made 7 more edits. Then a comment that basically wrapped up an AN/I incident.

All of this participation is time-consuming. I'm not exactly happy with the status quo, there seems a strong case that AR-15 has become a genericized trademark, and that "modern sporting rifle" is an invented term designed to forestall that genericization. So LB shouldn't take my edits as an endorsement of the status quo. I'm keeping this on my back burner. wbm1058 (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please take note

Greetings! I have re-copied your prior comment supporting or opposing the move of Modern sporting rifle to AR-15 style rifle to a new Requested Move section here: Talk:Modern sporting rifle#Requested move 22 February 2018.

I wanted to stop by and give you this courtesy notice, in case you want to add, delete, or amend your comments in any way. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Update

I've kept this thread open for several years without having time to pay much attention to the topic. Still it seems as ever the problems with guns aren't going away as there are nearly constant reports of shootings on the nightly news. I'm happy at least that @Lightbreather: was allowed back onto Wikipedia in 2022, and I just dropped a note on her talk. And now I'm going to finally move this thread to the end of my 2022 archive. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

CR

Hi, I don't think we should do OR and change the caps when the sources use the capitalized form. This was my point in the page move discussion, but I was outnumbered. The sourcing supports "Celtic Reconstructionism", and many of the places where you changed it are sourced to that form. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I've changed Celtic Reconstructionism to {{R from other capitalisation}}. Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

WMF governance

Hi, I saw your comment at [10] - but there didn't seem to be a response to it. Please have a look at the WMF bylaws - which ensures that over half of the board is community-elected, and couldn't be bought (if they were, then the community could elect replacements). Plus, the CC-BY-SA license provides the opportunity for a fork if need be. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: congratulations on your "election" and good luck with your hopefully-pending selection. It's unfortunate that the only difference between the terms "election" and "selection" is the single letter "s" but per my search of the bylaws the only elections the Foundation conducts are internal elections of its officers in which only sitting board members participate in such elections. All board members are "selected", not elected, and a board which is theoretically controlled by a billionaire may simply choose not to select to seat a member who was "elected" by the community and may either seat the community's second choice instead or order another "election" until it gets the results it wants. Thanks for dropping by my talk. Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Update: Mike was appointed on December 7, 2022. "Appointed" ≡ "selected", ≠ "elected". – wbm1058 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Jersey Films

Any idea why my changes were automatically reverted by this bot (it is a bot, correct?)? They were valid contributions but were immediately reverted. Joelikesagoodstory (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC) I'm new to wiki and I thought this was a bot account for some reason. May I ask why my previous revisions were reverted so I can better learn from my mistakes? Joelikesagoodstory (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Joelikesagoodstory: Sorry, this is a bit of an awkward thing. You linked to IMDB which has been tagged as a miscapitalization. That's what caught my attention as I'm a "human bot" virtually single-handedly working WP:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. I corrected the link to IMDb but then I noticed that you removed the link to Jersey Films which is a redirect to Danny DeVito. Jersey Films is discussed in that biography. There is a related redirect Jersey Group which before 2019 was a short stub article. I don't think there's anything there that isn't covered in DeVito's bio. Per WP:IMDB the content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors. A reference to confirm that Michael Shamberg is connected with Jersey Films in some way would be useful but the citation link you provided https://web.archive.org/web/20221212214445/https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?companies=co0010434 is simply a page with a list of films which doesn't mention Shamberg. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting! No, not awkward. I'm trying to learn.

So, could it be perhaps best to create a page for Jersey Films citing a reliable source for its productions, etc. instead of having two links to DeVito?

I really thank you for taking the time to educate me. Seriously. Joelikesagoodstory (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe better to revive the Jersey Group article and then make Jersey Films redirect to that. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay!

So I edit that link, add relevant and well cited info. Then publish? If I'm being cumbersome with taking you on as a wiki mentor without consent please let me know. I like to ask before googling. Bad habit. Thank you again! Joelikesagoodstory (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you can edit that redirect to convert it back to an article if you can address the reasons why it was made a redirect, i.e. there were no sources cited. There does seem to be some interest in this topic per the page views. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello again friend.

So it was quite a search as the NJ filings were not digitized until the early 00's. But I have one link from AFI showing DeVito and Shamberg as the main producers with Jersey Films.

https://avid.miraheze.org/wiki/Jersey_Films#:~:text=Jersey%20Films%20is%20an%20American,Jersey%2C%20where%20DeVito%20was%20born.

Another showing a production they did, curated by AFI.

https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/moviedetails/53886

And finally the divorce of the production company where DeVito remained as the sole shareholder.

https://variety.com/2003/film/news/jersey-films-divorce-finalized-1117886451/

Are these valid to reactivate the page? Would love some direction. I'm grateful for all your help. Joelikesagoodstory (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Miraheze is a wiki hosting service and thus not the sort of WP:reliable source needed for verification of a Wikipedia article. The AFI Catalog is good for getting a list of films where the film production company was Jersey Films, but I think you probably need a little more than just a list of their films. You might peruse other Wikipedia articles about American film production companies to see how others have done it; there are over a thousand of them. And yes, the Variety piece looks like something useful to help get you going. You might get further help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film where other editors interested in writing about films congregate. Ask questions at WT:WikiProject Film. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your guidance and apologize if me bothering you is not within policies! You have a concise and terse way of explaining that really helps! Joelikesagoodstory (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you...

...For explaining what was going on with your bot. Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit summary

Just an FYI, while film articles are expected to contain spoilers, we don't generally want them in edit summaries. LOL. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)