User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Thank your for fixing my errors

Thank you for correcting my contributions here and here. I was too hasty...

A happy new year --Cyfal (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, just doing my job ;) Happy New Year to you too Wbm1058 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Review of Keynesian Economics: Suggestions to keep the contribution

Wbm1058 what would you recommend me to do in order to keep the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis-Philippe Rochon (talk • contribs) 03:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Louis-Philippe Rochon: Hi, deletions isn't an administrative area that I specialize in, but my quick thoughts are:
  • You've only made 3 edits on Wikipedia (other than the one here), all to Review of Keynesian Economics. Editing other articles would be helpful so you can gain some experience. I trust that you aren't a WP:COI editor regarding that topic?
  • Per the message at the top of the article, You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason., you may buy some more time by removing this from the article:
{{Proposed deletion/dated
 |concern = Non-notable relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
 |timestamp = 20150103113454
}}
  • But that may simply lead to a more formal deletion process: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You should consider whether that will be worth your time.
  • The article should reference {{third-party}} sources, or you may see that message placed at the top. Right now the only source is the official website.
  • Review the other articles in Category:Economics journals to see what similar articles we have, which have withstood any possible deletion challenges. Try to match that standard.

Hope that helps. Good luck, Wbm1058 (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Louis-Philippe Rochon

You're welcome. Sign your edits by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Wbm1058 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Beatles Invite

Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.
Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet!
Todo list:

Neutral notification

You previously voted, opined, commented, or otherwise took part, at Template talk:Succession box#RfC. Please see a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 19#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Kraxler (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ivy League/Eastern Intercollegiate Basketball League/Eastern Intercollegiate Wrestling Association

1. Apologies for screwing up the redirects for Ivy League last night. I was trying to get rid of the redirect for the EIBL, since there is a separate article for that, but I did not intend to change Eastern Intercollegiate Conference from a hatnote to a redirect. I thought I had made two edits to make it work out correctly, but I only see one now, so either I didn't do the second one properly or I'm just losing my mind. :-) In any event, sorry, and thanks for fixing that.

2. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure why you put the link to the EIWA on the EIBL page, and only that link. The EIBL is a direct predecessor to the Ivies in basketball, and never contained any non-Ivy schools. The EIWA, on the other hand, is nowadays a separate competition from the Ivies in wrestling, and while it was founded by a group of Ivy schools, it has admitted other schools for a long time now. From the Ivies's standpoint, it is essentially the vehicle by which they qualify for the NCAA tournament. If we're going to put in links to leagues related to the Ivies, we should also have Eastern Intercollegiate Baseball League, IRA, ECAC Hockey, IFA, etc., etc. At that point, it probably makes more sense to either have the links at the general Ivy League page, or else have a category page (if that can be justified--don't know the rules yet.) Other Side of the Creek (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Other Side of the Creek: Hi! I moved this discussion to the bottom of the page, per the WP:TOPPOST talk page guideline. Re: (1) No problem; (2) The redirect I'm having problems with is Eastern Intercollegiate League. As far as I know, there was never any league with exactly this name. The Ivy League article doesn't explain why "Eastern Intercollegiate League" redirects there, and searching that article for the string "Eastern Intercollegiate" finds Eastern Intercollegiate Basketball League and Eastern Intercollegiate Wrestling Association as well as Eastern Intercollegiate Conference. Now you tell me about Eastern Intercollegiate Baseball League, and searching for that string I find Eastern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, and "Eastern Intercollegiate Leagues" for gymnastics, ski and volleyball. I'm thinking that redirect should be turned into a WP:disambiguation or WP:set index page, as I don't see why basketball or any other sport should be the WP:primary topic for "Eastern Intercollegiate League". The same could be done for Eastern Collegiate League (nobody's created that one yet). At least Eastern College Athletic Conference is a more traditional multi-sport league, unlike these other single-sport leagues. I'm familiar with ECAC as I graduated from an ECAC hockey school long before there was an independent ECAC Hockey league. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought about getting rid of the EIL redirect too, but left that because I wasn't as sure on that decision. If any league could reasonably be called just EIL, it would be the basketball league; I have seen quite a few references using just EIL as I have searched through the Ivy League newspapers. However, looking at the articles covering the reorganization of the league in 1911, they all pretty much indicate that the official name was EIBL from that point on, at least. (When the league initially started, the name I've seen the most so far is Intercollegiate Basketball Association, though I've also seen Intercollegiate Association and Intercollegiate League, and you still see those sometimes even after 1911.) So I would say that you're right, and that a WP:disambiguation or WP:set index is necessary. I will leave that up to you at your leisure, because you know how to do it better than I do. I still would say, however, that links to quasi-Ivy leagues like the EIWA and others should go under the general Ivy League page, if they go anywhere. I might start a discussion on Talk:Ivy League and see what people think.Other Side of the Creek (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Eastern Intercollegiate League is now a {{sport index}}. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

re Bhagwan Devatma ‎

Hi Wbm1058
Just letting you know that I have redirected Bhagwan Devatma‎, which you suggested merging, to Satya Nand Agnihotri. The editor has now created 3 pages on the same person, including Dev Atma which is how I got involved, from wp:NPP. I have a strong feeling all these pages may end up being deleted, as so far there appear to be no unaffiliated sources. Regards, 220 of Borg 02:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to complicate the issue, there's a pre-existing page (since 2007) about same person under the name 'Shiv Narayan Agnihotri'.
Comments at Talk:Shiv Narayan Agnihotri. --220 of Borg 04:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Wbm1058! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 17:44, Tuesday, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together


Undid

I undid your edits to Template:Disputed title. I don't think they were a good idea. If you think they are, please take it to the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I then saw that you tried to do some revision of title templates, and reverted all of it. I don't know where to discuss it. You can start here, perhaps, or let me know if you have a suggestion where else to discuss this. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

edit conflictI see it has something to do with Template:Topic links. I noticed you made over 10 edits to that template. And the same at Template:Cleanup-articletitle. You really shouldn't make experimental edits on "live" templates. Please use sandboxes for that purpose. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Please tell me what you don't like about my edits. "Not a good idea" doesn't really tell me anything. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you tell me what your idea is? What is it you were trying to accomplish? Debresser (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
That's just it. You don't even understand what I was doing. So, why can't you ask first, before reverting. Look at Category:Wikipedia title cleanup. Does that make it clear? Wbm1058 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. It is not as though I didn't have a clue. I did get the general drift. Now that you have explained yourself, let's discuss this. First of all, was this idea discussed anywhere? Because if so, I missed it. As for the technical things. I disagree with your idea to sift out main article space only. Why would you do that? Don't other namespaces have title issues as well? And the idea of sorting into 4 categories, however orderly it may be, does not seem to be a major improvement to me, especially in view of the relatively low number of pages (articles) in these categories. Which brings me back to the question if this is all your idea, or if this was discussed? Because if it wasn't, then I for one don't think we should implement this. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No not discussed, I was just being bold. It was just an idea I had after I discovered {{Category anchor}}. I didn't really expect this to be controversial. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised anyone even noticed.
  • You must not be familiar with Category:Wikipedia title cleanup, because it has always been for mainspace only. My edits today didn't change that (well, it did change temporarily until I fixed it with {{category other}}). You get a lot of user space junk otherwise. I don't want to go fixing user space. The four templates that populate this cat are only designed to be used on articles.
  • Other namespaces have different venues, such as "categories for discussion"
  • I thought it would be nice to easily see on the category page which templates were being used. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Now you can see what it looked like before. It just shows mainspace pages. You can't tell which template put a page in the category. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I used to be active in maintenance templates, standardizing them, so many of them are still on my watchlist. That is how I noticed.
You are right, that non-articles are not supposed to be tagged with these templates (and none are, presently). But to sift them out from categorization is counterproductive. If the will appear in the list at Category:Wikipedia title cleanup, they will stand out, and will likely be dealt with.
I personally do like the idea of sorting the pages into 4 groups, the way you did. I do not think it is necessary, in view of the small number of articles tagged with these 4 templates. A more serious problem I have with it, is that this is not the way to do this. If it is important to separate them, then make separate category pages for each template. Making such a division inside one category page, is ignoring the idea of categories a little. In any case, perhaps raise the idea on some forum, like the WP:Village pump, and see what other editors think. I'd appreciate a notification if you do. Debresser (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Categories using Template:Category anchor

59 total categories transclude {{Category anchor}}, as of 3 January 2015
61 total categories transclude {{Category anchor}}, as of 27 July 2015

Auto assessment categories

Work queues

Errors

Miscellaneous

Proposed new use

Updated Wbm1058 (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: After seven months, I decided to do something to clear this item off of my to-do list. I created Category:Wikipedia title cleanup (sorted by template), leaving the original Category:Wikipedia title cleanup unchanged. I see no harm in that, as both cats will always have the same members, as they are automatically populated by the four templates. This way readers and editors can see these articles sorted either conventionally or by sort keys. I suppose if you still have any concerns with this, the appropriate venue for discussion about my new sort-key version of the category would be WP:CfD. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your work at the backlog of tfd/h

Hi Wbm1058. Thank you for your work at WP:TFD/H. I very much appreciate it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheyenne Mountain (disambiguation)

Hi there,

It's improper use of a disambiguation page to have all the "namesakes" on the page. But I did put a see also with an Template:Intitle link for Cheyenne Mountain. If you'd like, we can take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation.

Really, there shouldn't even be a disamibiguation page for Cheyenne Mountain - there's one Cheyenne Mountain - and people referring to NORAD or the nuclear bunker call it NORAD, not Cheyenne Mountain.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Please bear with me, and my proposal will become more clear. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, hanging in to see where it goes.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi, as an FYI, I did some clean-up on the page, grouped the items, and corrected some of the information on the page... and I just posted an item at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Two Colorado disambiguation pages.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

sost disambiguation

I saw you reverted the disambiguation for Sost change that I made. I looked up page view stats to see which page is the primary topic. Page view stats say that Sclerostin (SOST) got about triple the traffic as Sust (Sost, Pakistan) in the last 90 days. Here are the 30- and 90-day page views of all pages noted on the Sost disambiguation page:

  • Sclerostin (SOST), 1629 views in the last 30 days, 4725 in the last 90 days
  • SOST (RMS Titanic Inc), 642, 1810
  • Sust (Sost, Pakistan), 450, 1565
  • SOST (bullet), 111, 304
  • Sost (disambiguation), 71, 250
  • Sost, Hautes Pyrenees, 47, 227
  • Sost, Afghanistan, 24, 87

It looks like the primary topic for Sost is Sclerostin. What you do you think? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for raising the issue. I've been enjoying looking at the pictures and watching youtube videos of the highest border crossing in the world (between Pakistan and China). Just spectacular. It is really hard for me to tell whether that town is more commonly called Sost or Sust as you can find road sign pictures with both an "o" and a "u". Content forks were started independently at both titles. The pages that link to Sost will need to be fixed if its primary topic status changes. SOST gene seems like a natural disambiguator for Sclerostin, and since it's all-caps it may not be easily confused. I wouldn't put much weight in page views for this case. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Unicode blocks

I just caught your addition to the Syriac unicode block article. I think this is fine, especially since it looks like you've been cleaning out the list of Unicode characters article at the same time, but I think I'd put the "list" format under the standard 16/row unicode block template, since the block template kind of functions as an addendum to the lede, while the list could theoretically be expanded to encompass all kinds of information. VanIsaacWScont 23:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vanisaac: Hi. I did Syriac (Unicode block) that way, as well as some others, because I was just following the pattern established by Basic Latin (Unicode block) and Latin-1 Supplement (Unicode block). I haven't seen any pages which show both, that show the standard 16/row unicode block template first, but your rationale makes sense to me. Feel free to flip them around if you like. Best, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The New Science

I noticed your edit to "History of Science" that undid mine. I was slightly wrong; "New Science" does redirect to "The New Science". However, "New science" does not. That's what I was trying to refer to. I'm going to redo my edit so that it is correct. I would appreciate it if you contacted me before editing that part further. (Decentman12 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC))

Oops, usually I catch those. Thanks for getting it right. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFED

As you may have seen, I posted a request for help at WP:VPT regarding your comments on editing a protected talk page. Jackmcbarn says that he's resolved the situation. Would you mind attempting to submit an edit request for a protected talk page? As an admin, I can't test it, since it will just let me edit the page; I'd appreciate hearing whether the new feature does what you were hoping it would. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that did the trick. Thanks! Wbm1058 (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Invalid redirects

Category:Invalid redirects, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Nobel Peace Prize hatnote

Turns out Peace Prize with capitals still points to the Nobel Peace Prize article, while Peace prize without the cap points at the list. I am retargeting the first redirect. Apologies for the interference. -- saberwyn 21:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Another Inconsistent similar redirect that I missed, like The New Science above. Thanks for making them consistent. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Bendson Louima v. Dr. Bedson Louima

Hi there, so sorry for having cut and pasted the entry. I did it in good faith and did not know of the move feature. I will use it in similar cases in the future. Please let me know what the next step is that is expected of me. I'm assuming you are going to reinstate the initial entry and use the move feature to correct the misspelling in the first name? --Aliceba (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. We're waiting for an administrator to fix it. See the notice I posted at the top of Dr. Bendson Louima. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:RMassist

The list at WP:RMTR now does not seem to have any 'discuss' links. I only see the 'move' link there. Was this intentional? Perhaps the vanishing of 'discuss' was an unintended side effect of your recent change. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Ed. Right, that's not how I intended it to work. That's the "require opt-in", version, and I intended to put up the "require opt-out" version. I swear I tested this, and it was working OK in the sandbox. I'll see if I can get it working as I intended. Sorry, I should have been paying closer attention after implementation. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
EdJohnston, OK, I think I fixed it now. I just observed that Anthony used the cut-paste method when the link wasn't there, rather than asking me about it. The idea is that you're not supposed to do that if the link isn't there. Do you think I should add a more explicit note to that effect in the what I expect will be, rare case when the user actually sets the "discuss" parameter to NO?
See my test here. The second line is the live version, and the third is the sandbox version. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The first of these three is what we will be seeing in the released version? I predict that that the 'discuss=no' option may hardly ever be used. It is hard to imagine an actual person wanting their move to be performed, willing to list it at RMTR, and unwilling to participate in a full discussion. I would be against adding more software support for such an implausible option. If you want to preserve this example as a test case somewhere, it would be useful to display somewhere the unexpanded source showing what parameters were passed to RMassist. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
EdJohnston, This 'discuss=no' option, which I agree will hardly ever be used, is my response/accommodation based on the discussion at WT:RM#Automated mishandling of a request and my followup in the next section WT:RM#Smoothing the transition from technical to contested requests. I'm not sure how I should proceed. I haven't gotten feedback from anyone else on that talk page. The lack of willingness to compromise has turned this into a big time sink for me, and I'm getting frustrated with that. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Note that this parameter was added by my last edit, and is documented at Template:RMassist. If I remove it then we still need to update the documentation and instructions on the new procedure. I'm not sure I can boldly do that given the objections raised on the talk page. Not sure if we need to start an RfC, or do it some other way. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
One approach is to interpret that discussion as No consensus for a change in RMassist. Then ask anyone not happy with the situation to open an RfC. So far as I can tell, only a single editor was unhappy with the status quo. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I just closed one technical move and it seemed to work. Hope you will be keeping this version of the template for a while :-). EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Emergency repair needed for Template:Rfd2, if you can do it...

Hey Wbm1058, I was doing some edits on Template:Rfd2 that I realized broke the template, but then realized that the fix might be something similar to what you did with Template:RMassist to forward the editor to the subpage in the event that they are on Wikipedia:Requested moves when they click on the link in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. When I performed this edit, I essentially broke the edit notices if the links are clicked on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion since {{FULLPAGENAME}} pulls the name of the page it was clicked, even if it is clicked from a transcluded page (which I didn't realize until now.) Is there a way that you might know to have {{FULLPAGENAME}} pull/return the name of the subpage (the page which the link is actually located) in the event the link is present on a page transclusion (such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion)? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Steel1943 (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943:
{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}FULLPAGENAME }} | Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests | <we're on the subpage, do this> | <we're NOT on the subpage, do this>
since in your application, I believe that the subpage name changes when it's relisted:
{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}FULLPAGENAME }} | Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | <we're on the main page, do this> | <we're on another page (likely a subpage), do this>
Hope that helps. I'm not that familiar with the internal workings of Rfd, so would need to study it more to give you a more specific suggestion. Maybe you can play with it in the template sandbox. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I vaguely understand what has to be done, but not sure if I am capable of implementing it without breaking something more. I guess the way to resolve this the best is if there is a magic word or parser function that runs a check if the page is a subpage or not. Then, that magic word or parser function (I get all of these terms mixed up sometimes) would replace the text "Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests" in your first example. Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Steel1943: OK, I have a test version in the sandbox. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 9 has my "mechanical hardware" test. It is transcluding the "keep/retarget/delete" links as desired. The main page Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion shows "[ Closure: (@subpage) ]" instead. With requested moves, the subpage is always the same so RMassist just hardcodes the link to that. Here the link changes every day, so the trick is to figure out the name of the subpage that's transcluded on that section of the main page. I'm not clear on what the problem is that you're trying to solve. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Wbm1058, if your sandbox does what I think it does, it solves the problem. The problem I am trying to solve is: After my edits, those "keep/retarget/delete" links produced an innacurrate link when clicked on their transclusion listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Since {{FULLPAGENAME}} returns the page name that the reader is viewing, if the reader is viewing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, if the link is clicked, then the edit notice generated will appear as "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#PAGENAME closed as ..." instead of "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/YYYY MMMM DD closed as ..." (which is how the edit notice will appear if the link is clicked on the subpage/page that is being transcluded), which break links in the generated edit notices. So, yeah, if what you did to the sandbox does what I think it does, you just fixed the problem, and much thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I thought that the re-listings were kept on the same page. I see how that could make the page grow too large, and indeed recall it bumping into the transclusion limit sometimes. So, it makes sense to move re-listings to the relist date, and then transcluding prevents the need for manually updating those edit-summary links. However, now it's a little harder to get to the subpages without those direct links to them. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

Can I delete a page if it was created in my likeness?!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Actuallyjenniferbanko (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 April 2015

@Actuallyjenniferbanko: Hi, I hear you. I don't know why you chose me, but I'm happy to help. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Actuallyjenniferbanko: An administrator has changed the name of your bio on Wikipedia. http://www.tv.com/people/jennifer-banko-stewart/ is one of the sources listed for the article. It appears to be another site with user-generated content, so you will need to make a separate request for name change on that site as well. If you want your page deleted entirely, rather than just the name changed, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I can't assure that your request will be honored, as the decision will likely hinge on whether you are considered to be WP:notable. However, user-generated content pages like www.tv.com are not WP:reliable sources. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This request is in reference to the NCR logo displayed on the NCR Corporation page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCR_Corporation. I submitted something on that page put have not heard back.

I work for NCR and manage NCR.com. We use our logo as a "featured" thumbnail as a default when there is no featured image loaded. You can find it utilized in many instances starting here: http://www.ncr.com/news/news-releases. The direct link to the logo file: http://www.ncr.com/wp-content/themes/ncr-dotcom-wp-theme_STRIPPED/_assets/images/placeholder_ncr_logo.png. Can we utilize this in place of the existing (and old) logo, please? Pcullinn1 (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know if you are able to assist. Thank you.Pcullinn1 (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Wbm1058 (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of talk page comments

I'm not objecting to your deletion of my comments on User talk:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger, I'm just confused because you said you were acting on the wishes of the editor. Do you know each other? Or did you encounter each other on IRC? Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know them, nor have I chatted with them on IRC. See this thread. That's where I read their request. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Wbm1058. I can see that my unasked-for-advice was also unwanted. Liz Read! Talk! 13:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Proclin

Hi! Sorry I reverted your addition of the see-also Proclin link to Sigma-Aldrich. Didn't realize the Proclin page had so little love. I'll poke around and see if I can dig up some other info to beef up the Proclin page or to connect it to other things. My dream is that all of the chemicals like this would have enough info to be their own useful pages. We'll see though. Lots to do. If there's not much out there we can nominate for deletion. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!! Ajpolino (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

deproded Funerals and Fly Fishing

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Funerals and Fly Fishing, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Coolabahapple (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, it's nice to see that I "prod"ded an editor into working on it! Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft talk:Testing

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

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

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Draft talk:Testing, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Stefan2 (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia Abuse by Editor Taeyebaar

You were named in a list of edits which were unnaturally reverted. Just FYI!

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sean Stephens (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

My response is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia Abuse by Editor Taeyebaar. I see that you've now been blocked as a sockpuppet. Oh, my. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Thanks

Thank you for your work with RMCD bot. The recent break has at least served to remind us of just how useful it is and how valuable your maintenance of it is. Best wishes, DrKiernan (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

+1. Jenks24 (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattress

You must understand this issue, because you closed a related move discussion with a very thorough rationale on June 7. Does this knowledge of the dispute also give you any insight into Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mattnad reported by User:BoboMeowCat (Result: )? It looks like the BLP issues needs to be examined with great precision, a thing that I might not have patience for unless people who understand the content show up at AN3 to explain the dispute to the closing admins. Sorry for taking you away from your valuable work! EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Report now closed, but thanks anyway! EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SMC Corporation logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SMC Corporation logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Redundant to File:Logo SMC Corporation.svg, which replaced it. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...

...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of it. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Tunisian Arabic

Dear User,

As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

My single edit to this article, back on 20 February 2014, was for technical reasons unrelated to the substance of the content, so I'm not really that familiar with the topic and thus don't have any comments to make about it. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Per WP:EDIT WAR, do not edit war. If you make any changes, you are the one who must show consensus for them. Ignoring this important principle of community editing, may lead to your editing privileges being revoked. Debresser (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a followup to § Undid above. All I've done is create a new category. This editor has reverted my template edits which did nothing more than simply populate the category, and has ignored the WP:Edit summary advice "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors". I now see that, per my suggestion in § Undid, they have opened a discussion at WP:CFD, which I just noticed despite their neglecting to add {{subst:cfd-notify|Category name|yyyy Month dd|CfD section name}} ~~~~ to the talk page of the category's creator (that would be here). Depopulating the category prior to discussion violates the CfD advice "please do not amend or remove the category from pages before a decision has been made", tilting the discussion in favor of the proposed category deletion. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
If I didn't add an edit summary, that is not a reason to revert! Strange logic here. I sometimes get tired of writing "Unproductive edit" or "Not helpful" or "Not encyclopedical". Debresser (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Reversion was simply my way of asking for an edit summary. Unfortunately, the three rationales you just gave above all boil down to Wikipedia:I just don't like it, which is why I suspect you "get tired of writing" them. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
1. Please be informed that reverting is unacceptable as a way to ask for an explanation. 2. "Unproductive edit" or "Not helpful" or "Not encyclopedical" are accepted edit summaries, quite specific, and in no way the same as "I don't like it". Debresser (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and other such rationales are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and in edit summaries. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I see no reason why that argument should be avoided, if it is correct. We should always ask ourselves whether our edits further the goal of this project or not.
Please note that I used that argument to undo your change to the templates, not in the deletion discussion. Debresser (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course, you are free to revert any edit on any non-protected page, on the basis that the edit does not "further the goal of the project", and leave everyone guessing about the reason why you feel that the edit is not productive. I'm sure you will always believe that your assessment of an edit's helpfulness is correct, but without explanation, your edit just boils down to a vote. Voters just pull a lever or touch a screen, and aren't even given the opportunity to explain to the ballot how or why they made their decision. Of course at Wikipedia, editors !vote. Wbm1058 (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Do I really need to reply to this? There is no limit to helpfulness in the eyes of some, while in the eyes of others, some things are not helpful, rather go into too much detail. Wikipedia is about consensus, a balance between the two. I think it won't hurt to agree to disagree, while simultaneously respecting the each others point of view, and stick to the consensus so far, which was 1 category page without sort key. Debresser (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Alan Wilson (Alan H. Wilson)

As this page is basically a list of articles, I've reverted you. You might want to consider creating an article on him over. Read our guidelines on biographies first. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'd have to find more information on him to start a new article myself. He should be mentioned in Semiconductor device#History of semiconductor device development or History of the transistor—its on my todo list. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Delighted to find Alan Herries Wilson, which was created October 25, 2012. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation links

Saw your post (thanks). Not sure if you're aware of this but I find the following added to your css file helpful. It highlights all disambiguation links with a bright yellow background so they're easy to spot and fix. 

A.disambiguation   { background-color:#ffff88; }
A.intentional-disambiguation   { background-color:#ffffcc; }

--NeilN talk to me 17:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, this also has to go in your js: 

importScript('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js]]

--NeilN talk to me 17:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I see that you import 'User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js' in User:NeilN/monobook.js, but not in User:NeilN/vector.js, and User:Anomie/linkclassifier says Note that this script has only been extensively tested on Monobook. I have only used the default Vector skin, and have never tried MonoBook. The link classifier doesn't seem to work in Vector skin. Do you switch skins often, depending on what you're working on? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks like I missed a line. Please look at my vector.js and vector.css now. I only use Monobook (it's what I'm used to) but when I switched to Vector the Alan Wilson link at the top of this page was highlighted. --NeilN talk to me 18:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: Thanks. I've got it working now. Though I found that creating User:Wbm1058/vector.css wasn't really necessary. I assume that's for overriding the defaults specified in User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css, but since the background colors spec'd in each are the same, I saw no difference after installing my vector.css. Alan Wilson (disambiguation) indicates "intentional dab" by turning green with a red border. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I think I really understand how it works now. Either I can importStylesheet User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css in my User:Wbm1058/vector.js, in which case User:Wbm1058/vector.css isn't needed or used, *or* omit importStylesheet from my User:Wbm1058/vector.js, in which case I need to specify my custom Stylesheet in User:Wbm1058/vector.css. This is a very cool feature! Wbm1058 (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

2010 NCAA Division I Outdoor Track and Field Championships

Thanks for your help on the article. I ran out of gas last night and fell asleep with the computer literally on my lap. When I undertook this particular meet, I was experimenting with trying to semi-automatically wikify the massive results document. I've found lots more results to post, but I haven't hit on the answer to clean up so many of these errors. It turns even the correction into a massive editing project. So I deleted a lot of your cleanup, not because you did anything wrong, but that you cleaned up stuff (like individual field event attempts) that is not commonly reported in results like this. I just never got back to clean that out before you edited. Ultimately my goal is to have all of these results look the same, year after year. Trackinfo (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I know what you mean about running out of gas; sometimes I do that in the middle of the afternoon! Right, I was thinking the individual attempts was too much information for an encyclopedia. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

re-open Ceres (dwarf planet) move

We did not just have the discussion to move Ceres (dwarf planet) → Ceres. We had a discussion to move Ceres (dwarf planet) → 1 Ceres. That is a totally different move request. This is to remove the disambiguation page and make Ceres the prime topic. The old one was whether to change the name to 1 Ceres. It may have the same result but it should run its course. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), I understand that, though someone implied otherwise in the discussion. Ceres (dwarf planet) has been subject of many move discussions (see the list at the top of Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet), including the same request earlier this year. The most recent discussion was running 6–2 against.
I learned a few things today. I did not know the name of the largest asteroid, nor did I know that it comprised approximately one third of the mass of the entire asteroid belt. I was especially surprised to read that a NASA spacecraft entered orbit around Ceres earlier this year. In contrast, I was taught that Pluto was one of the planets as a child, and note the extensive recent media coverage of the recent first-ever flyby. Hence, that dwarf planet doesn't share top billing with Pluto (mythology). I do recall another recent high-profile NASA mission, which landed on a comet. Why this mission didn't get the same coverage as that or Pluto is a puzzle to me. It seems that this Ceres kind of missed a great opportunity to move more into the spotlight. The presence of another space-based entity, CERES (satellite), doesn't help either. Nor the several organizations using the name. You can't just compare the dwarf planet with the mythological Roman goddess, you need to consider whether the dwarf planet predominates over all other uses combined. It's a high bar to cross. I see what happens when a marginal primary topic is designated as such. Editors will link to the goddess thinking it's the primary topic (it is, if mythology is a subject you're passionate about), leaving a link to the incorrect topic which is not flagged for correction the same way that links to disambiguation are.
I suppose I'm open to reconsidering this if you have a persuasive argument that hasn't been made yet that you think might turn the tide and get some to change their mind. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
You might misunderstand me. I am not necessarily for changing it from Ceres (dwarf planet) to Ceres. I did not vote as I was weighing the pros and cons. I am for proper procedure. That last time this was discussed in February it was not resolved, it was no consensus. The time before that it was suggested to make it the primary topic.... actually there was no other time per the talk page move request header. These things usually go for a minimum of 7 to 10 days... this went 18 hours! I will make it a formal challenge of the closure at the proper board but I thought to convince you to let this run it's course to see if we get consensus this time. To cut it short is not the way it works at wikipedia unless this exact same move request just happened a few weeks ago (and sometimes not even then if it was no consensus). Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, I reopened it. Noting that the word "snow" is not found in WP:RM/CI. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. But as I observe right this second, the first attempt was pretty mixed and ended in no-consensus. This attempt (after less than a day) was standing at solid 5-2 against with one extra inclined to oppose when it was closed. If you felt this was SNOW after 18 hours, then I question your judgment on what constitutes snow at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that I only came upon this page because the editor who initially "closed" it put it into Category:Fulfilled page move requests (or did my bot flag it as malformed? Maybe both). So I was only trying to clean it up. This is not something I would have closed this way on my own initiative. Based not only on the trend of the current request, but also the track record of the other recent requests, it seems to me that this is a longshot at best. So, I reluctantly reverted the previous malformed close, as you have appealed, which is within your rights. Pointing out the lack of provisions for "snow" in the closing instructions is more intended as an explanation to the editor I reverted. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It was flagged as malformed. Obviously wouldn't have been in Category:Fulfilled page move requests, but that's another issue I patrol for. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough and thanks again. I just posted something as a comment/discussion there to try and break the logjam. It probably won't help at all but at least I can say I looked at things and tried my best to gain consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Stamper

Didn't remember that it had previously gone to AfD, so thanks for linking it in the edit summary. And thanks for fixing the double redirect—it's usually easier for me to just let the bots handle it – czar 18:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes, particularly with more complex reshuffling, the redirect chain can get broken, and if they don't get fixed right away, they can redirect to the wrong title for months or years. Can happen with edit warring. Maybe not an issue here, but I generally play it safe if the cleanup isn't too time consuming. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Vanessa Ferlito's date of birth

Hello, I work with Ms. Ferlito. I would like to know who you are and why you keep changing her information?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman1382 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 26 May 2015

@Roman1382: Please read Talk:Vanessa Ferlito. Perhaps we should just remove her birth date, since this is apparently disputed. IMDB says 1977. But I do see now that TV guide says 1980. It would help if you provided sources. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


IMDB did state 1980 but it was changed once the Wikipedia page was altered. The New York Magazine article from the 90's was mistaken as well. As her representatives, we will be keeping a closer eye on these sites and take it from here. Thank you and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman1382 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven!
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your diligence toward getting Template:NRHP Focus working again. Awesome. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And for template NRHP-PA. Absolutely awesome. Do you have a bot that can do the replacement for all 3,000 articles, or should I join in the effort? Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been contemplating a request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, so that I can login as Bot1058 and turn on AWB's automated-mode. Unfortunately, that's a lot of procedural red-tape. Do you use AWB? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Reopened move discussion at Talk:Greyshirt (comics)

Hello, Wbm! I'm asking you about this because you fixed the formatting of the relist at this discussion, so I gather you are very familiar with how the RM listing system works. Here is the situation: The RM at Talk:Greyshirt (comics) was created on July 20 and relisted on July 30. On August 6 it was NAC closed by Kwamikagami. However, one of the discussants objected to the close, and Kwami gave them permission to reopen the discussion, which they did. How do we get it back onto the "current discussions" list at WP:RM? (I am the admin who carried out the closure result, so I'm trying to make sure things get done correctly.) --MelanieN (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - that was quick! --MelanieN (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Just needed to restore the {{Requested move/dated}} template. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Redirect template listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Redirect template. Since you had some involvement with the Redirect template redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edit at WP:Article titles - some advice

Regarding your recent edit here ... a word of advice: in situations where an article is used as an example in a guideline or policy, and that article becomes the subject of a current RM or RFC... it is usually considered disruptive to edit the guideline or policy while the RM or RFC is open. Better to wait until after the RM or RFC closes. In this case, I don't think your edit was an improper attempt to influence the outcome of RM... but it could be taken that way. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I just closed it, and am still mopping up some loose ends. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2 015 (UTC)
Ah... so I now see... the RM hadn't been closed (yet) when I wrote the above... for the future, may I suggest closing the RM first and then adjusting the policy or guideline to reflect the closure. No harm, no foul. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of content forking

There is a discussion on WP:Content forking currently on Drv for "Poetry in the early 21st century" concerning possible changes to improve the WP:Content forking page. Could you glance at this. MusicAngels (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I just took a second glance: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poetry in the early 21st century (deleted 20 October 2015). Seems there were enough other eyeballs looking at it. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Article move request

It would be nice to have these two articles moved over redirects:

I assume that both will be uncontroversial. The first to create space for a redirect (to American grass spider & Eurasian grass spider), and the second which has the accepted name and synonym switched around, cf. [1] JMK (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

JMK, done. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Saves me having to learn all those templates. JMK (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Char-Broil and Charbroiler are NOT related

I can't figure out how to remove the line that was added upon publication. "This article is about the "Char-Broil" brand. For the generic cooking device, see Charbroiler." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbdig (talk • contribs) 15:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cbdig: Thanks for pointing that out. I've straightened out more loose ends relating to Char-Broil, Charbroiler, and Broiler (disambiguation) as a result of your bringing this to my attention. I confess it's taken me some time to realize that Char-Broil actually makes barbecue grills, not charbroilers; the primary difference between those being that the former is used for light-duty residential outdoor cooking, while the latter is used for commercial indoor cooking. I had thought that this was an example of a genericized trademark, but now I see that's not exactly the case here. I see that Cyungbluth, the main author of the charbroiler article, is an engineer for Star Manufacturing International, whose product line includes Ultra-Max Gas Charbroilers. Now I'm curious to see which came first. I see from Bradley's website that the Char-Broil name was introduced in 1948. The charbroiler article doesn't get into history, but Google's Ngram Viewer first shows the term "charbroil" in 1945 (see here) and neither seems to have much use until the 1960s and 1970s (about when fast food started taking off, and Char-Broil began to mass-produce gas grills). Interesting. No clear answer to the "which was first?" question.
So regarding the line added at the top. We call that a WP:Hatnote, the purpose of which is WP:Disambiguation. In other words, we specifically use hatnotes to redirect readers to other unrelated topics. Links to related topics are generally put in a "see also" section near the bottom of articles. The question here is whether someone looking for information on the commercial-duty indoor charbroilers might search for that topic using the term "Char-Broil". As that is a capitalized proper (brand) name, including a hyphen, I think such a search would be unlikely. So, on that basis, I'll remove the hatnote. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
However, I think readers searching for Char-Broil are likely to search on "Charbroil", so the hatnote is appropriate on the Charbroiler article (as well as for helping readers find information about the G.I. Joe character). Wbm1058 (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: Thank you. I think a redirect from "charbroil" to Char-Broil would be appropriate. I've added the redirect from "charbroil" to "Char-Broil." I do not think that Charbroil the G.I. Joe character relates to the Charbroiler cooker.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbdig (talk • contribs) 20:00, 16 September 2015
@Cbdig: Please sign your talk page edits by typing four tildes (~~~~). Wikipedia has a concept called "primary topic" (see WP:Primary topic). There can only be one primary topic for the word "charbroil". I think most editors would lean toward the verb, i.e., you "charbroil" meat on a charbroiler; hence we redirect to that topic. Then we put a hatnote there to help readers find the secondary topic(s) for the term. Now if we make Char-Broil the primary topic, then we will need to put a hatnote on that article to help readers find the other topics (charbroiler and the the G.I. Joe character). So not only will we need to restore the hatnote that you wanted deleted, but also we'll need to add Charbroil (G.I. Joe) to the hatnote. Alternatively, if there is no primary topic for the term, Charbroil would be a disambiguation page. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Garry Newman

You're correct; Garry Newman redirected to Facepunch Studios. However, Garry newman (note the capitalisation) redirected to Garry's Mod, at least until I altered it to be consistent with the former a few minutes ago.

This was technically a mistake on my part, but IMHO understandable as names normally use upper case and it's confusing and error-prone to have two different capitalisations of the same name redirect to different places. Not really your fault or my fault, rather that it would have been better if there had only been one redirect in the first place!

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ubcule, right, that was flagged by Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review, which I patrol. I try to catch those, but when you process so many, it's easy to miss one. Perhaps the module that populates this category can be enhanced to check for that; I also sometimes look at Inconsistent similar redirects, which presumably would flag this situation too. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
No problem- like I said, not your fault, perhaps slightly mine, and was just explaining why I made a minor mistake. :-) Thanks for keeping an eye on this type of thing. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Early Morning (A-ha song)

Hello, Wbm1058,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Early Morning (A-ha song) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early Morning (A-ha song) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Followup question

Hi Wbm, just thought I'd pop by with a quick post-RfA question to you. As you raised the "96 ANI" concern, I had two questions:

  1. The first question is if your views could have (in theory, at least) changed at all for the better if I had explained what underlaid each (or some)? I didn't think it wise to respond to comments in general unless a specific question to me was posted at the questions section, but I am now wondering if I should have said more. Would it have made a difference to you? In theory, could there have been a response that would have moved you into the "support" column?
  2. My second question is if you would be interested in deconstucting a sample ANI incident to see what can be learned all around. I'm picking one where I did a revert with a "slightly uncivil edit summary" (others' words), and the reverted editor became very upset at me. I'm picking this one over some of the others because it doesn't involve any blocked sockpuppets or other people with whom I have "history", and because this is a good example of the "tone" issue that some people raised with me. (and because I did apologize for the edit summary) [2]. My reversion that gave rise to the ANI was this one).

Thanks for your time, and no worries if you are too busy with your new mop - far more important things out there (and by the way, if you wanted to move prep sets into the DYK queue, that's usually a job that desperately needs more hands on deck!). But I am hoping to run again in 6 months or so and I am seeking feedback. Montanabw(talk) 19:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw! I can't say that there isn't anything you could have said during your RfA that would have turned me around, but really I think that's not worth spending too much time on, and there may have been as much risk that you might have said something to make it worse. So, quickly moving on to question #2, you've picked a topic that I both find to be interesting and know nothing about. I'd like to get at least a bit up to speed on the content issues, which I expect will help in understanding any behavioral issues. I see that Disney made a movie Miracle of the White Stallions about these horses, which I've already reserved from my local library. I suppose you're probably familiar with it – seems like a lesser-known cousin of The Sound of Music. And, just in case they played a little loose with the facts, I see my library also has a copy of the Nature Season Thirty-One episode, "Legendary White Stallions" (May 1, 2013). After I watch those, I'll get back to you. Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. The "Nature" episode is wonderful - you'll enjoy it. And Disney didn't do too bad a job on the Patton story; I've read many of Alois Podhajsky's books, it was a fascinating period in the history of the school. Keep in mind that the article itself is currently GA-class.  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 03:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I've watched both DVDs now, so I have a basic understanding of the topic. The diff was an edit to the country parameter for {{Infobox horse breed}}. I note the template documentation simply shows a simple example of [[England]], where there is a single, clear-cut country of origin. However Template talk:Infobox horse breed has "extended documentation" (it's unclear why this been relegated to the talk page):

  • country: Country or countries of origin, preferably at time of origin to avoid squabbling over current political boundaries.

The text for this parameter is already long, taking up six lines in the infobox in my browser: Developed by the House of Habsburg from Arab, Barb, Spanish and Neapolitan stock. Today associated with nations of Austria, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia. The second sentence "Today associated with nations of Austria, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia." Doesn't address the countries of origin, but rather the countries where these horses are bred today, so perhaps could be removed from the infobox. "Developed by the House of Habsburg..." doesn't specifically name a country either. I see that they trace back to other breeds in Spain and North Africa, but assume that what is intended is the country or countries where the "foundation horses" were mated to originate the Lipizzans. My reading of the article finds two locations for the mating of the founders: in 1562, the Habsburg Emperor Maximillian II brought the Spanish Andalusian horse to Austria and founded the court stud at Kladrub. In 1580, his brother, Archduke Charles II, established a similar stud at Lipizza (now Lipica), located in modern-day Slovenia, from which the breed obtained its name. So the modern-day countries are Czech Republic and Slovenia (the original "farm teams" for the major league show at Vienna, whose "farm" is now at Graz, Austria, as seen on the Nature program). To find the country at origin, I look to Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor to see what county he ruled in 1562. Seems he ruled several, but they all appear to be internal divisions of the Holy Roman Empire, which he ruled by 1564. So, it seems that the best answer for "Country of origin, at time of origin to avoid squabbling over current political boundaries" is "Holy Roman Empire". Of course, the average reader will say, "huh?" and click on that to see the map showing its territorial boundaries. File:HRR.gif shows how the Empire's boundaries changed over time. Except that the House of Habsburg also ruled the Habsburg Monarchy, which was a composite state composed of territories within and outside the Holy Roman Empire, united only in the person of the monarch. So, Habsburg Empire – final answer ;) I can see how consensus would settle on what's there now, though.

Now regarding the behavioral issues, yes, I agree the revert had a "slightly uncivil edit summary". Especially given Slovenian nationalism is a legitimate and potentially controversial topic. I really see no basis for bringing that into the discussion at all. Seems like it was a good-faith edit to me, especially as that place is "from which the breed obtained its name". It's understandable that an editor not closely reading the article could unintentionally overlook Kladrub. Really what you should do is put a link in your edit summary to the talk page discussion which settled on the current text as the consensus for the best description of "country of origin", and ask the editor to read it and then respond with arguments as to why the consensus should be changed, if they wish. If there was no prior talk page discussion, then you should start one, like the discussion I just started above, giving the rationale for what the infobox should say about "country of origin". Wbm1058 (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Great research, and I wish everyone would do stuff like this! So, I think you have some good points for an initial explanation. But how long does one stay patient until you go, "same old shit, here we go again?" (LOL). For example, the Slovenian problem popped up in [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lipizzan/Archive_1#Origin_in_Lipica December 2008], 2009 (three threads, same editor as 2008, December 2013 (same editor as 2008, [3] Feb 2015 (three threads)] in July 2015, last month, and two days ago. Do we need to create a FAQ the way they did at Talk:Barak Obama? Or what? At what point does one just throw up their hands and say, "have at it, POV-pushers." ;-) Montanabw(talk) 00:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Montanabw. Regarding one of your edits which you linked, "We can fix the link if that's a problem. It was everything else that led to the revert.", generally I don't like to see editors making full reversions of edits when only part of the edit is a problem. You should just revert the portion of the edit you object to, and let the rest of their edit stand. I know it takes more of your time to go to the effort to do that, but it helps establish a better rapport with the other editor. Or, better than a straight revert is to change it to something which might be agreeable to both. So, yes, I see that the current long-winded text for "country of origin" is problematic, because editors keep trying to change it from time to time. But if these were "POV", agenda-driven editors, wouldn't they also be trying to remove "in 1562, the Habsburg Emperor Maximillian II brought the Spanish Andalusian horse to Austria and founded the court stud at Kladrub" because that doesn't agree with their agenda? How about responding to this IP's single edit with |country= [[Habsburg Empire]] as I just suggested, copy my rationale to Talk:Lipizzan, and see if that sticks? "Developed by the House of Habsburg from Arab, Barb, Spanish and Neapolitan stock. Today associated with nations of Austria, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia." can be integrated into the article body somehow, if it doesn't already say that. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Let me chew on all that. You have some good ideas. BTW, why are we merging templates and documentation now, when they split them up originally? (I know squat about that techie stuff, just curious). Montanabw(talk) 23:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I think at one time, the Template:Infobox horse breed page might have included both the actual template code and the template documentation. Possibly, someone wishing to split the documentation from the code might have chosen to use the talk page for the documentation. But these days, the general practice is to use the WP:subpage Template:Infobox horse breed/doc for the documentation, which is WP:transcluded to the Template:Infobox horse breed page when you look at it. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Fish sandwich listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fish sandwich. Since you had some involvement with the Fish sandwich redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Just heard about...

THIS! and since you're one of my favorite editors on WP, I wanted to congratulate you. The "mop" couldn't be trusted to anyone better! Joys! and Best of Everything to You and Yours! – Painius  08:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Paine! I just archived everything at User talk:Wbm1058/RFA. I figured a month was long enough to leave it up, and try to keep this page under 100,000 bytes. I really appreciate all the support and congrats I got. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Impressive congrats page! Yours was the kind of RfA I would have expected had I chosen to become an admin back in early '13. An RfC on a grand, 3-part scale was going on back then, so I backed off. I may as well try again, because the RfA will probably always be a central theme of controversy. I may not get it, but I'm glad you did! Paine Ellsworth (talk-contribs)  13:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Zala (disambiguation) / Zala / Zala County

A couple weeks ago, you moved Zala (disambiguation) to Zala. Was this move over a redirect, and did that redirect point to Zala County at some point before being changed to Zala (disambiguation)? It appears that a Tobias Conradi sock (Domlesch) made changes to a bunch of articles to change a link from Zala to Zala County, and now that The Blade of the Northern Lights has reverted those edits, there are over 250 ambiguous links to Zala.

If Zala used to point to Zala County (I can't see the deleted edits), can the disambiguation page be put back at Zala (disambiguation) and the redirect restored (to point to Zala County) to restore the status quo ante (and maybe an RFD should be started to discuss that redirect)? Note that I have no issue disambiguating the Zala links if things stay as they are, but I would basically be reverting from Blade's version to a sock's version, and I don't feel comfortable doing that. (pinging @SpacemanSpiff and Bbb23 as they have dealt with Tobias in the past) -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 09:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This has been a nightmare of a clean up now because of his recent change in MO. He used one account to request the move and another to actually perform it, so reverts aren't working as they ought to unlike over the past eight years! But to the original question, Zala was pointing to Zala County. In true Tobias style though, the common and official name of the place is Zala and doesn't have county on it. EB lists it as Zala. —SpacemanSpiff 12:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys. Yes, on 18 February 2008 Timur lenk moved Zala to Zala County: "Add administrative division category (as Oblast in Ukraine; Voivodeship in Poland; Region in Slovakia; County in Croatia and Romania etc.)" All of the Category:Counties of Hungary article titles end with "County", so this is consistent. Thus #REDIRECT [[Zala County]] is the first of three deleted edits, and that stood until Domlesch changed it to #REDIRECT [[Zala (disambiguation)]] at 18:46, 16 September 2015. The third deleted edit was {{db-move|[[Zala (disambiguation)]]|standard for dab pages is to reside at the base name}} at 21:01, 16 September 2015 by 91.9.102.194, who apparently has been connected to Domlesch (see User talk:Bbb23#Tobias). It takes some work to follow the audit trail for that. Then at 2:21, 23 September 2015, I moved page Zala (disambiguation) to Zala per WP:MALPLACED. It's curious that the {{db-move}} apparently sat there for a full week. I suppose symptomatic of our shortage of active admins. As I recall, I was responding to this 08:31, 21 September 2015 RussBot notification (at the time there were just eleven incoming links, and my edit history shows that I disambiguated them using popups). I see how EB handles this. I'd like to take a closer look at Wikipedia's handling of the other counties of Hungary, and will follow up here shortly. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

19 Counties of Hungary:

  1. Bács-Kiskun is unambiguous
  2. Baranya is a dab
  3. The town Békés is the primary topic, not Békés County (interestingly, EB doesn't have an article about this "major town"
  4. Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén is unambiguous
  5. The town Csongrád is the primary topic, not Csongrád County (again, EB doesn't have an article about this "major city"
  6. Fejér County is the primary topic, but Fejér (disambiguation) only has two other options: Fejér County (former) and Fejér (surname) – there's no town by that name
  7. Győr-Moson-Sopron is unambiguous
  8. Hajdú-Bihar is unambiguous
  9. The small city Heves is the primary topic, not Heves County
  10. Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County is the primary topic, it's a WP:TWODAB with Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County (former) the secondary topic
  11. Komárom-Esztergom is unambiguous
  12. The village Nógrád is the primary topic, not Nógrád County
  13. Pest is a dab
  14. Somogy is a dab, though Somogy County (former) seems to be the only other topic
  15. Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg is unambiguous
  16. Tolna is a dab
  17. Vas County is the primary topic; Vas (disambiguation) has a large number of items, though most are for the three-letter acronym "VAS"
  18. The city Veszprém is the primary topic, not Veszprém County
  19. So now there are about 230 remaining links to Zala. Given the above, and that there is a Zala (village), I'm inclined to leave this as is (forcing disambiguation), with no clear primary topic. The only example supporting the county as primary is Vas (and that's dubious in my mind) – better to play it safe here and not make anything primary.

Most links seem to be stubs such as:

It shouldn't take long to use WP:AWB to change these to [[Zala County]]. I think County should be upper case here as it's a proper name. I can work on this. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I was going to get to this, but see that others have taken care of it now, for which I'm thankful, as I've been juggling several balls recently. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk page errors

Thanks for finding the Talk page errors you reported at the OTRS Noticeboard. As you guessed, most are OTRS issues; I've begun slogging through them. In many cases, this is a boring technical issues, a new agent used the image template when the text template should have been used. It isn't as simple as changing the template, one has to read the OTRS ticket and track down the text in question, so it is manual, not a task for a bot. I'm glad this was uncovered, because in at least two situations, the permission was for an image, and because the tag was on the talk page, not the image, so the images were deleted. I've recovered ten images that have been or can be restored to articles, so you deserve credit for helping with that.

If I've buttered you up enough, you mentioned that you do patrol for these types of errors, so I wanted to report that at least 4 are something other than OTRS. My plan is to make a formal list, maybe in a subpage, of items I have not handled. Some will be OTRS, and the OTRS team will figure out what to do, but some are not. Would you be willing to take a look at:

And see if they are ones you can handle?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, a couple of those titles are familiar to me; as I said there were a few there before the OTRS issues appeared. I'll get to them eventually. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
An interesting conversation at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard #Errors requiring attention, where I reported this issue. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, it wasn't always this easy to find {{error}}s to fix this way. See Template talk:Requested move #template:error for discussion of the work I did to make this possible. It's nice to see my efforts paying off! Wbm1058 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I just fixed Talk:Misha B/Archive 2 and Talk:Total Siyapaa/Archive 1. The other two have already been addressed. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: 80 left, Get 'em while they're hot! ;D – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks:) I'm working on a summary of what is left, so now I can skip one category, the non-OTRS issues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I found one more:

Thanks, there's light at the end of the tunnel. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Stuck at 39 left? Wbm1058 (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Let's not say "stuck" but "paused". I have an external summary in progress of the remaining ones. Not surprising, the low-hanging fruit is gone, and the remaining ones are a bit more difficult. I need to finish my summary, identify a game plan for the various categories of open items, and post it. Life intervened, and frankly, it dropped off my radar. thanks for reminding me, I'll try to return to it soon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


I finally worked through the last 25 of these – most I was able to figure out what should be done, even without access to the OTRS tickets – and now the talk namespace is {{error}}-free! Yeah!! Starting the new year with a clean slate. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

SPA vandal (?)

WBM, can you take a look at this: [4]. This IP has a history of problematic edits dating back several years, and the two most recent edits are clearly over the line. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I assume by SPA you mean single-purpose account (WP:SPA). This IP has only made two recent edits, and the older edits may have been by a different person. I have just performed my first WP:revision deletion, which I am happy to do, although I haven't added myself to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. It would be nice to see something positive coming from this IP (none of the edits I checked looked constructive), but I'm not comfortable with blocking it unless the recent vandalism persists. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, WBM. Thanks for jumping in. As I went back through the edit history of the IP, I found this one particularly over the line: [5]. While it is obviously old, you may want to consider working your rev-del magic on it too. I will keep an eye on our friend for more activity. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Project Invite

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Virginia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Virginia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Go Hokies (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Go Buckeyes Wbm1058 (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1037 of
Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jack Meakin

You restored this AFC submission to assist with an AFD. I see that the AFD closed as delete. Did you forget to re-delete the article? Hasteur (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, It's deleted now. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

An award for you!

The "leaving it till the very last second" award!
For managing to get your ArbCom election vote in mere seconds before the polls closed, I think you deserve a special reward for staying calm right up to the deadline :) Mdann52 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
LOL, Lanterne rouge. How many seconds did I beat the time limit by? Wbm1058 (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Less than 15 by memory (server time, so possibly not when submitted :P) Mdann52 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Relisting Process for Page Moves

WBM1058, since you have participated in discussions regarding Page Moves and the relisting process, I invite you to share your own comments over at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - there is an existing discussion regarding formally banning relisters from voting. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

On Heathenry

Hello.

On the use of "heathen," this is from the notes on the Odinism page.

14. Some Odinists use the word "heathen," but many reject the term. Stephen A. McNallen, an American Asatru leader, avoids "heathen" because in the "public mind" it means an "ignorant, superstitious, or uncouth person." Stephen A. McNallen. Asatru: A Native European Spirituality. Runestone Press. 2015. p. 2 ISBN 0972029257.

15.Likewise, Dr. Michael Strmiska, a pagan who studies the subject, made this observation: "recently I prefer Norse-Germanic Paganism as a catch-all term that covers all relevant bases and slights none."

Stephen A. McNallen is the leader of the Asatru Folk Assembly. Dr. Strmiska is a pagan professor who writes on the subject.

--Holtj (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

--Holtj (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I am aware of this now, and see there are two sides to this issue. I am currently in process of writing a post to Talk:Heathenry in the United States. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I personally prefer Odinism, Asatru (I think the use of accent marks, although technically correct, is a bit pretentious), and Norse paganism, but the neutral term for all forms of Germanic Neopaganism is Germanic neopaganism. Note that originally the Heathenry article was Germanic neopaganism.

--Holtj (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Germanic neopaganism. Typo above. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Currency

I've been trying to be very careful with not breaking anything here, but it's not working properly for some reason in Template:Currency/Page. No problem reverting but I have been testing this as I go along, very subtle bug somewhere which propagates up; Template:Currency/Page doesn't link sometimes which is weird because the link is not in an "if" statement at all, should be unconditional. I'm looking into it, I didn't mean to break anything. Si Trew (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way the errors when the currency type is unknown are intentional. Si Trew (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Si Trew, yes, but {{currency|100 million|NZD}} throws an error, and the New Zealand Dollar is not an unknown currency:
NZ$100,000,000
I haven't figured out what problem you're trying to solve, but suggest that you create Template:Currency/sandbox and try to make your changes work there first. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Believe me, I did that as much as I could (well, using the template documentation pages as test cases), it was integrating it to "go live" where the problems reared their head. Sandboxes are only so much use because of the cross-links between the templates. I'm adding more test cases. Template:Currency/Type is suffering too for some cases. Si Trew (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Slow movement talk pages

Hello
I wanted to raise with you the matter of "the discussion fork about a topic at a talk page of a redirect to the topic".
I had thought I'd left an adequate explanation of what I'd done on the Sm talk page when I copied it to the proper page and closed the discussion there down, but evidently not; however what we now have is a de facto cut-and-paste merger of the content to the SM talk page, and (I've just noticed) we now have three copies of the merge discussion lying around. Which is kind of ridiculous.
So I would suggest that we have the sm page stuff back where it was (ie delete it from the SM page) add an explanation and archive the whole sm page away; and if you have no objection I will go ahead and do that. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow where there are "three" copies. There is just the page I moved to Talk:Slow Movement/Merge request and your copy of that. That's just two. I followed your explanation, but if Talk:Slow Movement#Requested move 17 November 2015, which is still open, closes as "move to Slow movement", then the talk page will also move to Talk:Slow movement, and my move of the history of that to the subpage clears the way for the move. But even if the move closes as "no consensus", I don't see any harm in just leaving it at the subpage. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
OK; the merge discussion was on the wrong page (Talk:Slow movement). I copied it to the right page (here) and archived it on Talk:Sm with an explanation. You then copied it again to Talk SM (here). You also moved this comment, which was placed on Talk Sm in July 2005 (pre-dating both the SM (Aug 2005) and the Sm redirect (Aug 2005) pages).
So those two items should be on a Talk:Sm page, where they were written, and if we don't want them at that title the page should go to Talk Sm/Archive 1 or something, with an explanatory note. That would preserve the  history and the paper trail. As it is, we have a duplicate discussion on talk SM and the cross-referencing links between the two are all to pot. And I am quite prepared to fix it, but I don't want to be stepping your toes over the matter. Which is why I have asked. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the transclusion of the merge discussion; "or something" is Talk:Slow Movement/Merge request, which is back to the way you left it, except for the title. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for doing these; though I still think the page needs archiving, so I've gone ahead and done that. BTW how do you do that transclusion thing with the talk pages? I can't get it to work at all...Moonraker12 (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@Moonraker12: This diff shows how I transcluded the talk subpage. While WP:transclusion defaults to using the template namespace, you can transclude from other namespaces by specifying the namespace.
The problem with moving that to Talk:Slow movement/Archive 1 is that if ever Talk:Slow Movement is archived to Talk:Slow Movement/Archive 1, then there will be an archive name collision if Slow Movement is moved to Slow movement, and there is risk that the admin doing the move will just delete Talk:Slow movement/Archive 1 to make room for Talk:Slow Movement/Archive 1 to overwrite that name. Talk:Slow movement/Archive 1 is also a misleading name in that it implies that it's a "normal" archive of talk that was supposed to happen at Slow movement, rather than an unconventional discussion – naming it something more like Talk:Slow Movement/Merge request makes it more clear that it was an unconventional discussion. Having it as a subpage of Talk:Slow Movement makes it more likely that it will move with Slow Movement to whereever that page moves (perhaps Slow movement (sociology)). But, in the whole scheme of things, this isn't worth fussing over any more. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks (belatedly!) for replying. I can see your point about the archiving, but... anyway, like you say it isn't worth fussing over. I replied to your comments on Slow TV at the (now!) Slow movement (culture) talk page (here) if you are interested. Also, I couldn't get that transclusion thing to work (see diff, here); I've no idea what went wrong. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Moonraker12: You were trying to translude Talk:False messiah/Article status, which is a non-existent subpage of Talk:False messiah, and I see what you really wanted to transclude was the Article status section of that talk page. First do this so that you don't transclude the entire page, and then transclude it by putting {{Talk:False messiah}} on the page like I just did below. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Begin transcluded text

@Editor2020:, @Setareh1990:: Since there's been a merge tag on this article for awhile... and it was originally started as now-banned user Stevertigo's bizarre ramblings... is there anything actually *worthwhile* to stick in this article? I don't think there's any useful general concept of false messiahs to be had that isn't a dictionary definition. In other words, Jewish Messiah claimants, Antichrist, and Masih ad-Dajjal are all worthy articles, but there isn't anything ACTUALLY connecting them. No article can sensibly be written on their similarities. For example, look at the likes of Thunder god, which just redirects to List of thunder gods so that people can see more about Thor, Zeus, etc. There isn't any article to be written on "thunder gods in general" that assume Thor & Zeus are somehow related. SnowFire (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it provides a useful cross-religious comparison of false messiahs, but I won't be heart broken if it is decided to merge. I just wanted to make sure it was discussed first. Editor2020, Talk 19:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

End of transcluded text — Wbm1058 (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ahh! Got it! Thanks for that; I'll know next time. Cheers, Moonraker12 (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

David M. Arden article

Many thanks for your assistance Wbm1058!Johngosselin (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Mindboggling facts, or are they?

Population and area taken from the respective country's infobox, other values as stated in column Remarks.

Country Population Area/km² Motorway network length/km Motorway/capita (mm/person) Motorway density (m/km²) Remarks
UK 64511000 242495 3555 60.41 15.46 List of OECD countries by road network size#Motorway network
France 67128000 643801 11882 172.74 17.78 List of OECD countries by road network size#Motorway network
Germany 357168 81083600 12845 159.4 35.98 List of OECD countries by road network size#Motorway network
USA 322014853 9857306 75008 253.05 7.79 List of OECD countries by road network size#Motorway network
Spain 46439864 505990 16214 347.16 32.04 List of OECD countries by road network size#Motorway network
China 1376049000 9596961 111950 81.36 11.67 length from Controlled-access highway#China, per capita and density calculated
Russia 143975923 17098242 9400 65.29 0.55 length is sum of List of motorways in Russia, per capita and density calculated

What this tells us is that China and (much more so) Russia are still catching up. That China managed to build its network in 25 years is not impressive, considering that they could avail themselves to the 80 years of technological progress that happened since the first US motorway.

By the same measure, the differences in regional rail networks and public spending on transport infrastructure seem more indicative of distance to equilibrium of supply and demand, rather than being portents of a future Chinese hegemony. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The 75,008 "motorway network length" is from 2006, per the citation in the linked article. That would seem to be just the Interstates, as their total is 77,017 as of 2013. A more fair comparison should probably include America's "other freeways and expressways" – there are many state highways which are essentially equivalent to Interstates, but for the route signage. So China's ahead there, but not by as much as it seems from just looking at the Interstate hwy mileage.
Regarding public spending on transport infrastructure being a matter of "supply and demand", I suppose that depends on your POV of what that is. Public spending isn't determined by a classical market economy, but I suppose one might view it as a function of what PACs supply in the form of campaign contributions, and what they demand in the form of infrastructure. Apparently they haven't been demanding that much of this stuff for some time. If you have a private jet, who needs a high-speed train... Wbm1058 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
"from 2006" Yeah, I was too lazy to incorporate the more up-to-date numbers.
"isn't determined by a classical market economy" I don't think I said that. A nation with a more mature transport network will have less growth and spend less on it, without this fact implying anything about relative competitiveness.
My point is, a closer look a what the numbers really mean reveals that they don't support the thesis that the US is losing to the Yellow Peril. If one wishes to worry, I'd rather look at how the FAA is cockblocking the road to a drone transport network. Paradoctor (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I'm not worried about a "future Chinese hegemony" or "losing to the Yellow Peril" either. Just appears that the "playing field" is a lot more level, and change is accelerating, for a number of reasons... Wbm1058 (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Could've fooled me. ;) Anyway, den Letzten beißen die Hunde. I believe the old boys in China hear a lot of barking lately. :D Paradoctor (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Discoloration listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Discoloration. Since you had some involvement with the Discoloration redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Message for you

I left a question for you to your statement about closing the RfA Reform RfC. The way you worded left me curious, but please don't take my question as accusatory. It is merely a question.—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yea, sorry, I shouldn't have said that. Haven't even looked at your question, but apologizing already. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I left it at the Bureaucrat's smorgasboard, not the RfC. But if "admin-wanna-be" was implying me, then don't worry about it. Just know that my volunteering to be an admin, is simply to further help the project. I'm not dependent on being one, and I can do plenty as a non-admin. I just don't like being called inexperienced because I'm a non-admin. Yes, I will make errors in judgement from time to time, but I do learn. Happy holidays. :-)—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wbm1058/Archive_3&oldid=1077696210"