User talk:Wbm1058

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Disambiguation link notifications[edit]

As these are generated by a bot, and I occasionally check or patrol the status of these, I moved them to a special archive: /Disambiguation link notifications. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Alan Wilson (Alan H. Wilson)[edit]

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)

Computer hardware[edit]

Please understand the difference between the general term hardware that – when it comes to electronics and computers – may refer to any electronic circuit, such as single-purpose circuits designed to fulfill one particular job, and between computer hardware, which is hardware that is part of a computer, a general-purpose (or special- but multiple-purpose) device that can be custom-programmed to fulfill different jobs. Do not simply change all instances of hardware to computer hardware. Thanks. Nageh (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion continued here. Sad to see another good editor retire. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Continued further at Talk:Computer/Archive 5#Definitions of computer vs. computer (disambiguation), and general-purpose computer vs. special-purpose computer. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Distribution America[edit]

Editing this article to meet Wikipedia standards and restoring it to complete Wikipedia's coverage of hardware retailers' cooperatives is on my to-do list. Help with pointing me to useful references would be appreciated. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Fecit[edit]

Thanks--that will work. See the frustrations of an IP editor? It takes two days for a simple redirect, and the ignorance of one editor can hold up the entire process. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, so I helped you out. Maybe there should be an article on Signatures and inscriptions on art or something like that, which covers both, and any other ways that artists have signed their works over the ages. I added a ref. that covers the topic. If you stick with this, consider signing up for an account, that should ease these types of problems. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
For now, I would prefer not to. Odd--the German wiki has Signatur (kunst); the best we can do is a pop-culture thing like Signature artwork. Thanks again. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I see, de:Signatur (Kunst)... de:Fecit and de:Pinxit both redirect there. Signature (fine art) and Signature (art) are red links. You're very welcome! – Wbm1058 (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD -- PBS (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been sleeping on this, and dreamed up some ideas which I'll post there in a while. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
That is very good news. Village pump proposal archive fairly quickly. If it does I'll copy the discussion somewhere else. I think the best place to do so is Wikipedia talk:Proposed mergers as that seems to be roughly the equivalent of RM. If I do I'll let you know. -- PBS (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I have posted some ideas of my own. -- PBS (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that you were involved with automation of requested moves. Sorry, I'm still tweaking things at RM (I'm a bit of a perfectionist). Eventually I'll get to it, but merges are a big bite to chew and I don't want to spread thin and lose too much focus. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Note to myself – look at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 67#WP:Requested mergeWbm1058 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you familiar with {{Requested move old}} (originally named {{Movereq old}})? As far as I can tell, it wasn't documented anywhere, until I just added it to WP:Template messages/Moving#After (potentially) controversial move requests are closed. Although it's been around since 24 December 2010‎, when Rich Farmbrough created it (what I've seen of his work is of highest technical quality), I haven't found any talk page discussion of it anywhere. But some editors have used it—it's transcluded on some 59 talk pages (the last two are my doing). Just amazed that I haven't noticed this template until today. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
How Rich announced his new template: diffWbm1058 (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC) ...it stayed in the instructions until this edit. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
personally I don't see the point of Richard's template. I would suggest that automating the merge procedure would be a much better bang for the buck than further perfecting the automated RM procedure, particularly as the algorithms for mulit-move requests and proposed merges are similar and proposed merges are such a mess -- some of them have been around for may years. -- PBS (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
His template could be used to eliminate some redundancy and in my opinion is more elegant than harej's solution for archiving closed RMs. Eventually I would like any similar solutions for merges to be implemented consistently with the RM solutions. But, yes, further teaking here need not hold up some temporary solutions for merges, since that's such a mess... Wbm1058 (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I am missing knowledge of what harej's solution is, and why it is thought necessary. Surly to close a RM one just uses {{poll top}}. Why is anything else needed? -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually you should use the more specific {{subst:RM top}}. The old and new page names are included as parameters in {{requested move/dated}}. Closing instructions call for removal of {{requested move/dated}}. It needs to be removed so the bot doesn't pick it up, as the bot looks for transclusions of that template. So, to keep a record of the old and new page names in the archived section on the talk page, harej created {{subst:Requested move}}, which creates the {{requested move/dated}} template, and redundantly writes a list of old and new pages outside of the /dated template, so the list will still be there after /dated is removed. Now, if instead of removing it, we simply change its name to {{requested move old}}—or {{requested move/old}}—voila, now we don't need to write the redundant list outside the template. The redundancy can cause issues, when an editor corrects their typo or changes their mind about what the new name should be, they need to make the change in two places. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I also just observed that until June, 2011 User:RFC bot created an Automated list of proposed mergers at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log, which were nominated for deletion. Why did RFC bot stop creating these lists? – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
No idea I'll look into it. -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
RFC bot's last Proposed mergers list updates were on 29 August 2011. The Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log revision history shows that harej was having trouble getting the bot to "Behave, please.", and about this time he was turning over the bot to a new operator. Looks like a ball was dropped. I'll see if I can pick it up. –Wbm1058 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Bookmarking an old Feature request Pending Approval. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD. If I didn't keep branching off into other directions, I'd get to this sooner. So much to do. :} Wbm1058 (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 2#Automation of merge proposals -- PBS (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Well duh. The bot was working off of Category:Merge by month, which became a soft redirect to Category:Articles to be merged on 30 August 2011. No wonder the bot's last successful run was 29 August 2011... I patched the program with the new category name and it seems to be happy. Time to file the bot request for approval. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's an example of what I mean by "they need to make the change in two places": diff. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I am rather busy at the moment fixing hundreds of pages that use EB1911 as a source, so I have not been following the merge discussions for the last month or so. What is the state of play at the moment? Has the system been automated yet? -- PBS (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I see, {{EB1911}}, Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition – looks like a worthy project. Recently added to the public domain because it turned 100 yrs old? Merge bot is running every 24 hours, and awaiting approval. See Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#Tagged articles. Also on my plate is supporting multiple tags on a single talk page, see #Cannot get RMCD bot to trigger and Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive 25#Add section title for adding automatically. A solution here can be leveraged to merge proposals, as I'm sure there will be some proposing merge A into B, then below that someone else will propose A into C. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#Requests for assistance and feedback remains moribund, mostly supported by a single editor. Probably the next step is to change the current manual process there to another manual process in the form that is desired to be automated. In other words a process that is maintained manually in a similar manner to how requested moves is maintained manually when the RM or RMCD bot is down. Then I can work on automating that manual process. Should be easier to do here than at RM because the activity level is so low. Getting closer to that, hoping to get to it soon. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Warren (Porridge) for deletion[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge of Newtonian fluid and viscous stress tensor[edit]

Hi, apparently you have restored the merge tag in Newtonian fluid assuming that it had been deleted by accident. Actually the tag was deleted because it was posted 6 months ago, and since then there have been no arguments for the merge, but two against it. Besides the article has been edited heavily in the meantime, so it is dubious whether the editor who put the tag there would still want to do it.
That said, I must complain about the tag being placed on the article (and at the *top* of the article) rather than on the talk page. Please do not quote the manual of style. (Some years ago I looked closely at how MOS pages get created, and saw that they are generally the work of half a dozen people, who declare it "consensus" without any input from the other 10,000 editors.) There is an older fundamental and eminently sensible rule saying that messages to other editors should be placed on the talk page, never on the article itself. Article-side editorial tags were apparently first invented for biographies of living people, with the excuse that they were a warning to readers as well as to editors. But then other people started inventing other tags for all sort of banal editor-to-editor messages, and apparently felt that for being enclosed in a flashy frame those messages were somehow exempt from that fundamental rule. So now we have hundreds of millions of obnoxious tags that hog the articles for years on end, thanks to a few dozen editors who enjoy creating tags and pasting them by the thousands, but never take the time to fix the articles or discuss them in the talk page. Of course, those are the same editors who write the Manual pages that "legalize" the use of such article-side tags, "by consensus"...
Sigh. Can't people see how ridiculous and yucky Wikipedia articles look with those post-its all over the place? Can't people see what will inevitably happen when editors can tag an article with a few mouse clicks, but it takes at least half an hour of work to remove a tag?
Sorry for the rant but I had to try. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for RM templates[edit]

O great RM template guru, I have a request. Would it be possible to edit the standard and multi RM templates to add an optional parameter that would suppress auto-signing? Something like |sign=no? Auto-signing can occasionally cause problems, such as when someone converts another editor's move to a multi-move or simply replaces a malformed request. It's not the end of the world that the current arrangement requires a second edit to remove the extra signature, but would this be a viable option? It's hard to imagine this being abused, and it would be easily remedied (such as with {{unsigned}}) if it were. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Smiley.svg
"template guru". It takes a lot of time & effort to become one. Since you, and another editor, have asked for this before, I'm working on it—and those templates are becoming even more complex. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to keep you waiting, this is still on my to-do list. I started working on it, and while doing that, found other enhancements I felt should be done first. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pneuron logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pneuron logo.png. 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

@Sfan00 IMG: @JohnCD: Well, duh, the image is an orphan because Pneuron was deleted because the author – apparently either User:MooshiePorkFace or User:Morning277 (which one is it, an article can only be created by a single editor, and it should be clear which it was!) was banned or blocked. Why did it take several months to notice this? I can't find any edits to Pneuron in either of their edit histories. As I recall there was probably one single main contributor to Pneuron who I don't recall edited much else. I think the editor that created the article may likely have been associated with the company. There was, as I recall, borderline notability established by third-party reliable sources. I decided to help out a neophyte editor anyhow by uploading the logo. Sorry to find that apparently my time was wasted. Can you confirm the actual editor that created the article? Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I see that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 links to Pneuron. It shows (edit the article to find this stuff which has been collapsed):
I don't see any evidence in Sorrell's edit history to show that he created or edited the Pneuron article. This all seems kind of strange to me.
Is this the kind of editor that we want to encourage with "easy" tools like Visual Editor?
Help I need some kind of "Visual Editor" for "sockpuppets" this is very complicated and I don't understand it. Make it easier for me, thanks! Wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
You don't see it in his edit history because it was deleted, but Pneuron was the only article created by Brian.r.sorrell (talk · contribs) one of well over 200 throw-away socks in a massive commercial spamming sock-farm, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive250#Proposal to ban User:Morning277 and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277. In a case like this it is necessary to be fairly ruthless about enforcing WP:CSD#G5 and the WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad policy; if we keep "good" articles, the ban is useless and the spammer can just carry, on creating a new sock for every client. JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

2009, 2010, or 2011?[edit]

Please revisit THIS discussion. Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I just submitted a new move request, based on the previous discussion. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update[edit]

Hey Wbm1058. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Authority to subvert?[edit]

I saw an edit to my archives (that's bad, bad form BTW), and it appears that you're planning on usurping WP:FNC for some other purpose than what it been in use for. Could you please point to a discussion where this was approved by consensus, as I for one am 100% against it ES&L 17:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, no there is no consensus, I was just being bold. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
And I have undone the change to WP:FNC. Please undo any other changes to archives, articles, etc until you have appropriate consensus for the change. Considering how much that acronym has been used over the years, that might have been a little too bold. Cheers. ES&L 17:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
So your position is that once tied up, even in user space, a shortcut can never be reused? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Shortcuts.
I had just finished cleaning up all links to WP:FNC by replacing them with WP:FBNC, when you came along. It didn't take me that long. None of them were in article space. That's better form than I've seen from others on Wikipedia, who just usurp shortcuts without bothering to clean up old links in the archives.
The user space essay apparently came into being because its author was involved in something of an edit war. All mention of it was limited to talk pages and noticeboards in the 2008–09 timeframe, and it has pretty much been superseded by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople). I think that it was bad form to take a 3-letter shortcut for a link to user space. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:List of shortcuts. Apparently there is some basis for what I want to do. WP:J and WP:X are "pending reallocation to high-traffic page". Surely this user's page is not a high-traffic page.
Wikipedia:File names needs a new shortcut. Do you have a good alternative? If not, I may need to go with WP:FILENAMES.
If we can't come to a local consensus here, where should I take this issue to find a broader consensus? – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
@EatsShootsAndLeaves: Oh, I see. The guideline is at the "shortcut" WP:Changing shortcuts. I confess I just now read this. Don't know why it took me so long to find, maybe because WP:Shortcuts redirects to Wikipedia:List of shortcuts rather than Wikipedia:Shortcut which makes it easier to find the list than the guideline. It's not worth my time to bother with WP:RFC as this isn't really that big of a deal to me, and WP:FILENAMES has been accepted as the new shortcut for Wikipedia:File names, at least so far. I've reverted the rest of my changes. Best, Wbm1058 (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Glad you found it ... I haven't been online much the last couple of days. I appreciate your understanding, your research, AND what you're working towards. Cheers ES&L 00:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
@EatsShootsAndLeaves: An RFC isnt necessary for this, as it shouldnt be controversial, so I have redirected WP:FNC to Wikipedia:File names again. Shortcuts for userspace pages are rare (usually only occurs when the page started in Wikipedia space, but was moved to userspace as it wasnt appropriate for WP space). This page has very few backlinks or pagehits, and very little collaboration around it. We already have a naming convention for sportspeople, and any specifics regarding football can/should go there. Even if there was a football specific naming convention, it would use a shortcut like WP:NCFB, as all content page naming conventions start with WP:NC*. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

RMCD bot alert[edit]

Hey Wbm1058. First let me just tell you, belatedly, thanks for taking over the bot! Doing what it does by hand was a real pain in the ass. Anyway, this is a minor error, maybe nothing needs to be done—especially if a fix would require a lot of coding—but I thought I'd just alert you to a bot issue so you'd know about it.

I closed the move discussion at Talk:Zanzibar House of Representatives. I'm not quite sure why but the bot listed the page both under September 11, and under "time could not be ascertained" (seeing this, I had supposed there must have been first a malformed request and then a change to it, so it listed and then listed again, but I couldn't find any such malformed initial request in the page history). In any event somewhere along the line, the bot listed it twice and didn't remove the first listing when it listed it again. Furthermore, after I closed the discussion, the bot removed the listing at WP:RM from September 11, but left it listed under "time could not be ascertained". I manually removed it. I tracked down the first listing to this diff but I'm not sure when it listed it the second time. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. This is a glitch I'm aware of, but have put a low priority on fixing, because it's a transitory problem that fixes itself. The bot's update (22:31) was coincidentally processing at the same time as you closed the RM (22:30). As I mentioned in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Bot considerations, A request will be listed in a special section titled "Time could not be ascertained" on Wikipedia:Requested moves if the listing bot cannot ascertain the date on which the request was made. This may be because:
  • The move request was closed while a bot update was in progress. This should resolve itself with the next bot update.
The bot runs on the quarter-hour, so if you had closed the RM a minute or two later the bug would have been avoided. Maybe I should put a higher priority on fixing that. I'll get to it eventually. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
If it would have been taken care of by the bot if I had just waited then it's rather innocuous, so, yeah, put it at the low end of the triage pile:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Raion technical move request[edit]

Hello Wbm1058. Regarding this technical move request. This proposal is not going to fly as an uncontroversial move request so I attempted to transfer it to Talk:Raion#Requested move. One of your comments may have been lost in the shuffle, so please restore it if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Pneuron for deletion[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lepid[edit]

Hello Wbm1058,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Lepid for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Tritario (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:United States v. Microsoft Corp.#Requested move 2[edit]

Another requested move has been made. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for Clarification[edit]

I understand your change at Bradley Byrne regarding the appropriate infobox to use. I did look at the template page and saw the quote that you left so I do not dispute your change. I am curious about the reasoning. I looked through the archives and saw a lengthy discussion from 2008 concerning the make up of the template and what should be included but I am wondering where the actual discussion took place concerning the prohibition. Could you direct me there? I'm curious because it seems to me that a person currently out of office but nominated for a major office would be better served by a candidate box instead of an officeholder box. Just wondering. Thanks! JodyB talk 19:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm probably not the best person to ask as I only occasionally edit political officeholder articles, and am not familiar with any past discussions about the issue. Actually I found your edit because you (inadvertently, I assume in good faith) linked Democrat Party (United States) in that infobox. Notice that redirects to Democrat Party (epithet). I was just patrolling for those, and found one other. I'll give you a more high-profile example: Mitt Romney's article, 1 November 2012. Typically, the media still called him "Governor Romney" rather than "candidate Romney. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the linking was inadvertent. In fact, I did not know there was an epithet page. Anyway, I appreciate the information. JodyB talk 20:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You are now a template editor[edit]

Wikipedia Template editor.svg

Your account has been granted the template editor user right, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links:

Happy template editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding permalinks to block log entries for 3RR[edit]

Thanks for your experiment with permalinks. See a proposed improvement at User talk:EdJohnston#Linking in edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I did the block, per the dummy case you created. See the permalink. Nice. How can you get those anchors to appear in front of all the 3RR complaints? :-) The permalink is going to the original complaint before the action was taken. The real case (after being closed) is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ThisIsaTest reported by User:Wbm1058 (Result: 24 hours). EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
To make this work right, the admin needs to (a) write the closure on the 3RR board with their summary, and save the page. Then (b) do the block. The permalink goes to the version of the page that existed when you hit 'Block.' EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
That's correct. I found one other issue I need to fix, then we can run another test. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, I issued a block on the new test you just created. See the results at [2]. Then I removed the test report from the board (which actually simulates what will happen when a report is archived) and you still see the one that you want to see when you click on the permalink. Do you have a suggestion of what to do next? I'm not sure there would be general support for changing the commonly used userlinks. Maybe an admin could install a script that would enable some of this functionality, while leaving the board undisturbed for for other users. Thanks for your work, EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Ed, I think we're ready to go live with this. Since I've added a parameter to {{userlinks}} I think it best to create a new application-specific fork of this template, which I've done: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/userlinks. This way other uses of {{userlinks}} and prior uses in this application will not be affected. We go live with the new permalinks feature simply by making the version of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Example with edit summary "implement permalinks for user blocks" current. I don't see any potential controversy or downside to this. All the change does is pre-populate the other reason field in the user blocking form. As with technical move requests, if an administrator doesn't want to use the default permalink message in the reason field, they can simply replace it before clicking Block. I suspect that, as with technical move requests, most admins will just go with the default permalink message. If you agree, I'll flip the switch to make it live, and we can run a final in-production test to confirm everything is working right, and then post a notice at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard and update the administrators' documentation. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Why not let me try it out for a week in practice. I can call your new userlinks explicitly before saving each report. If no problems, let's propose the idea at WT:AN3 and see if there are any comments. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure, we can take a slower approach to full implementation. Just to be clear on the changes required to "flip the switch" on this, in this diff the left side shows the code needed to implement. One piece of this is a unique section anchor that is created (the number which is the current time stamp) when users "click here to create a new report", edit the form and save it. Those anchors are needed for the section linking to work. The anchors are invisible to readers and only seen in edit mode, and adding them should be harmless to the current system. The second part is the link admins click on to block editors. I created a beta version of my new Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/userlinks which includes the normal "block user" link which is the current method, followed by a "beta" link which does the new permalinks. Would that be OK? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It is often necessary to fix up incomplete or malformed headers on someone else's report. Unclear on how people will correctly fill in the 'Anchor' when they are trying a manual fix. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I added a comment to the preload file that loads when users click "Click here to create a new report" in the edit warring page header, warning them not to edit the anchor. Anyone bypassing the preload file to create their request won't have an anchor; I don't know how many editors would do that. Worst case, if there is no section anchor, then the permalink will just go to the top of the page. I realized that these section headers are edited, that's why I added the anchors as something more permanent to ensure that the section links would keep working after the section header text was changed. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Another test: See last entry in my log. Though your change isn't 'live' yet I'm able to exercise it with two additional steps:
  1. Insert '/' in front of userlinks, like {{/userlinks|Sample_user}}
  2. Manually add {{anchor|28}} in front of the noticeboard header, where the '28' is the number from the TOC.
For clarity, I'd normally want to include the article name in the block reason. Will try to remember to do that next time. Also saw that the permalink can be cut-and-pasted onto the user's talk page for extra documentation, following the block notice. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Another example: [3]. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Proposal at User talk:Bbb23#Making 3RR actions more informative. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've read the discussion at Ed's page and now the discussion here (well, skimmed the discussions is more accurate). I know much less about templates and coding than Ed. With that in mind, a few things stuck out for me. First, I don't block users from the userlinks template. My practice is to block the user in the normal way and then update the AN3 report with the result. Second, I'm a little unclear as to how dependent all of this is with an admin doing things in a particular way. What way does this have to be done to get the permalink? Is there more than one way? Does it matter if a report is generated with Twinkle? Finally, I don't have a clue as to what Ed means by the anchor and "tolerating its presence". In any response to me, please assume I'm clueless.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

My new template just "prepopulates" the normal block administrator-interface with the "other reason" field having a permanent link to the section of the noticeboard where the block was proposed. If you don't click on that template link then you won't get the permalink and you can continue to block editors as you always have. Instructions can be updated to explain this new (optional) feature. It's best to update the AN3 report first, and then do the block. That way the version with the updated AN3 report is seen when the permalink is clicked. You can block first, but then the permalink will show the older version of the AN3 report. {{anchor}} is a template added in the new system that just aids in directly linking to the applicable section on the noticeboard. Using anchors is also optional, but without them the permanent links will just go to the top of the AN3 report page. What Ed means by "tolerating its presence" is that these cryptic anchors would be part of the section titles and editors should just ignore them and not attempt to edit them. I put an edit comment around them to help ensure that happens. I was hoping to find a "magic word" that would let me link to the section immediately above the template, which would avoid the need to create these anchors, but I couldn't find anything. The pros to using permalinks are that it makes it easier to find historical block records, to research an editor's block history. The cons are that it makes it easier to find historical block records, if blocks are at some point to be "forgiven and forgotten" some time after a user corrects their bad behavior. I can also keep it optional to use the permalinks in the other reason field, by having separate block and block w/ permalink in the template to click on. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Occasionally it may be necessary to research an editor's history. Quarrelsome people often clear out their talk page. Seeing an edit warring block in the log (from months ago) is not always informative, especially if the person was working on a variety of articles at the time. At a minimum, I think the name of the article in dispute should be in the log. It looks as though Bbb23 is one of the admins who always does that for AN3 reports. It would be even better to provide the link to a discussion if there was a simple mechanism to do that. If I'm the only admin who would use this system it's probably not worth any change in the noticeboard that others would notice. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
@Wbm, thanks for the lucid explanation. I believe I understood it. Just as Ed has noticed that I put a wikilink to the article when I block someone for edit warring, I also noticed that Ed puts in a link to the AN3 section. I've never followed Ed's lead on that because I knew that once the section got archived, the link in the block log would be less useful (not useless, though). The proposal here would resolve that problem, and the only cost, as I understand it, other than a small learning curve, is the anchor in the section header. If this is implemented, I will use it, so that makes at least two administrators who would do so, and with a little of publicity and coaxing, others might do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Deep gratitude[edit]

A big thank you for your help to clear Category:Cross-namespace redirects into its subcats. Really can't thank you enough! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 03:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. One final push to clear most of the rest, and then it will be time to take a break. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Break? Whassat?! Face-wink.svg – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

An Rcat holiday[edit]

Weihnachten10.gif Holiday Cheer
Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine

Aeronautics[edit]

Hi,

There is a discussion here on whether to move the aeronautics article to Aeronautical science (over the redirect). Some background information is provided in the previous discussion on that page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I replied at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Location of move discussions. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

White/blacklist[edit]

Hi Wbm1058 - don't worry too much about the beans - it is more that the specialists have techniques of tracking spammers back (like checkusers have techniques to see connections between accounts) that we don't always divulge (if they know what we look for, they know what to hide - I can give examples via email if you like). Outing is a bit of a case when x years ago a named account that carries the name of the owner of a domain, and now an IP that is now doing exactly the same - putting the name on the IP may be sensitive (CheckUsers will not divulge the IP an editor is working under, form of fishing). I tend to avoid to directly link the accounts, I tend to say 'this editor was here before', and you'll have to search them yourselves - you can believe they are there. Example is that someone is now spamming aaa.com, and we know that aaa.com is owned by bbb (domain-data, links in the template above) - if I say that this editor was here before, you might want to look for similar IPs (the range - though those I generally do point to directly), or for a user:bbb .. it is linking publicly available data, but ...

You took the long way to the old discussions (I agree, it is sometimes all we have) - for a long time we use the above tracking template (I would say 6-8 years already) which links nicely to some reports. Finding the back-links leads you quickly to all places where the template is. They are the 'tracked' and 'advanced' links in the Discussions-section in the template above. For mapsofworld.com it would lead you to the request where it was blacklisted, as well as some other attempts. It sometimes also nicely links up different domains of different situations which nonetheless are of the same owner. Also it shows other requests and other discussions where the tracking was added (other whitelist requests, or even outside the spam area). Do take note of other whitelist requests - funnily enough sometimes you get a whitelist request of an IP or newbie stating 'I tried to add my site here, and it was blocked, can it be whitelisted' .. 'my site?' .. so you are still trying to spam.

For specific links we tend to be more lenient (you've been very thorough with mapsofworld), though on some sites (depending on the type) we do often consider whether there are alternatives - like for examiner.com: every click on that article gives money to the writer of the article on examiner.com, if there are alternatives telling the same, then there is no need to sponsor that writer so he gets what was probably the reason why he wrote the article on examiner.com in stead of on any other website (plus, information on examiner.com is sometimes 'scraped', there are better sources). That people follow links from Wikipedia is just the reason that it pays to have your links here - people will visit your website.

If there are questions, don't hesitate to ask. We can also work on a bit of a guideline for some techniques as well, that would be good to make the learning curve a bit less steep, and to make people understand what they can provide to make the work easier (and possibly, faster). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a note: COIBot just reports from the LiWa3-feeds - some link additions follow typical 'spamming' patterns, and reports for those are saved. That does not mean that the additions are of a type that leads to blacklisting (often, they first get just reverted, or even ignored). Also, COIBot does not blacklist by itself (it does not have admin rights, it does have a function to add things to XLinkBot's revertlist, but also that is by command, not automatic), that is strictly done by 'real' editors - it is just saving the reports when either requested or when the additions of the links follows patterns (or are 'suspect' for other reasons). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Bot response test[edit]

If you are around, and you don't mind - could you please add the following line to User:COIBot/Poke:

(I may ask this a couple of times, until it works - I'll explain in a bit when it works). Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Mwagh, that was easy, it already worked (coibot does not save the example.xxx reports, but I saw it go through the whole procedure).
I added you to the access-list for that page. If you need a report for a link (a refresh, some extra data, the exact blacklisting rule, etc.) then you can add the plain domain (for 'http://www.example.org/index.htm' you use 'example.org'), wrapped in the LinkSummary-template onto that page, and COIBot should pick that up, and save that (COIBot works with a queue in which these reports do not have the highest priority, it may take some time).
Please note that the current database is recent (less than 2 weeks old, I had to restart on a new server). Older revisions of the reports may have used earlier databases (this is the third major restart ..), so that is sometimes worth checking to find older accounts.
You could now test it for real with that 'washoequiltshoppe.com' - the report (linked under Reports: .. 'COIBot' in the LinkSummary) should then be saved, and that should state which rule on which blacklist catches the link. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Large-screen television technology[edit]

I put the hatnote back the way it was. Apparently you discovered TV technology didn't redirect, and I didn't see this because it says "Redirected from Tv technology". It's a software quirk. The obvious solution is to create the redirect, but I didn't know this was needed. It was the journal I needed to link to because it was a reference. I just wanted to make clear the purpose of the hatnote.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I understand the purpose of the hatnote and see that you created the redirect. I still don't think it's necessary to say that "TV technology" redirects to there, as that should be obvious from the title and content of the article. However if you prefer that hatnote, it's OK. I just think a simple {{for}} template should be sufficient in this particular case. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a new section header to permalink to[edit]

...so that I can explain how permanent links work by demonstrating a permalink to this section and use of the {{REVISIONID}} magic-word.

Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding permalinks to block entries -- part 2[edit]

Hey Wbm1058. Can you take a quick look at my log and see what I'm doing wrong regarding permalinks? This is just a hacky thing I tried to do, where I compute the permalink myself and then try to type the right URL into the field of the blocking form. As you see the results do not look nice. The raw URL gets displayed in the block entry I create, instead of being concealed. When you do it (with your system) you get the word 'permalink' as a nice blue link. Thanks for any advice you can provide, EdJohnston (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ed, I've been meaning to get back to you about #Adding permalinks to block log entries for 3RR, been juggling a lot of different projects lately. So you want to use the magic word {{REVISIONID}} to create custom edit summaries with permalinks? If you want to permalink to a revision that already exists, then you can just copy-paste it, for example, most editors know that
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wbm1058&oldid=587393071#Adding_permalinks_to_block_log_entries_for_3RR old version]
gives this:


but there's another way to do it that involves just getting the REVISIONID number from the link:
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wbm1058&oldid=587393071#Adding_permalinks_to_block_log_entries_for_3RR old version]
so this:
  • [[Special:Permalink/587393071#Adding_permalinks_to_block_log_entries_for_3RR|old version]]
gives this:
which is the same link—the only difference is that the first one is done as an "external" link, while the permalink is an internal link. With the internal links you don't need to use the underscores instead of spaces, so this:
  • [[Special:Permalink/587393071#Adding permalinks to block log entries for 3RR|old version]]
works too:


Now, what if I want to permalink the version I'm composing right now. I can't cut-paste the REVISIONID number as above, because it doesn't exist yet, and I can't compute or guess what it will be. Several editors are saving edits all over Wikipedia every minute, and each of their edits is assigned a new unique revision ID number by the MediaWiki software. That's where the "magic word" comes in.
Just for kicks, I'll create a new section just above this one with this edit, and permalink to that new section.


OK, here goes the test:
  • This is an edit summary pointing to the [[Special:Permalink/{{REVISIONID}}#This is a new section header to permalink to|permalink]] on my talk page for this edit.
I'm just going to copy what's in boldface above from my preview screen and paste it to the end of my edit summary.
Remember that {{REVISIONID}} doesn't work in preview, so in this case, what I see in preview is not what I'm going to get!
This is what I see in my preview edit summary:
Preview of edit summary: (→‎Adding permalinks to block entries -- part 2: some copied from Eo ipso. This is an edit summary pointing to the [[Special:Permalink/{{REVISIONID}}#This is a new section header to permalink to|permalink]] on my talk page for this edit.)
I'll just take it on faith that it will work. Then I'll come back to see if it really worked.
And finish giving you and Bbb23 an easier way to do this at WP:AN3.
Hope this helps.
Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, yuk. That didn't work. Back to the drawing board. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
testing Wbm1058 (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
We can try out these options and then propose a change in Mediawiki to support what we need! :-) More likely to be accepted when we can submit a patch. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem with some of these obscure Mediawiki features is that is is so difficult to find good documentation. For one thing, the documentation is spread out over so many different projects. You have Help: and Wikipedia: on this project, but there's also Meta-Wiki, Media-Wiki and who knows what else. I still have trouble understanding the purpose of all these diffuse sources of info. Now I recall making this edit, and that was because this doc didn't say something that I found somewhere else in an almost redundant doc elsewhere (except that it added this useful tidbit). Now, I can't remember where I found that and can't find it anymore. Sigh. Now this is vaguely coming back to me, I think I figured it out in testing, never found this documented anywhere, but another restriction with {{REVISIONID}}, besides not subst:-able and not preview-able is that it doesn't work in bare wikitext, i.e., [[Special:Permalink/{{REVISIONID}}]] doesn't work either. No, it has to be encased in url-encoded {{fullurl:}}. See bug 5270 and m:Help:Parser function#URLENCODE. Looking at both the technical move requests and the block-user stuff I set up, I did it that way in both cases. So, let's try it again:
  • This is an edit summary pointing to the [{{fullurl:{{Urlencode:[[Special:Permalink/{{REVISIONID}}#This is a new section header to permalink to|permalink]]}}}}] on my talk page for this edit.
No, now I'm thinking that this can't be done in a normal edit summary. You can't put external links in an edit summary, just wikilinks. The only places where I've seen this successfully used are at Special:MovePage and Special:Block. Both of those have special editor interfaces that do support (require) constructing fullurls. So I give up on doing this on normal talk pages. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I finally found the page m:Help:Variable that had that info.
"{{REVISIONID}}" gives "618315523" [4] showing the current unique revision number of a saved page as used for diffs in the page history is in essence useless, it can't be substituted and also doesn't work in preview.

"is in essence useless" LOL, at least we found a use for it at WP:RMTR! Wbm1058 (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'll "spill some beans". I'm not entirely the guru who figured out how to make this REVISIONID/permalink stuff work. This 31 October 2009 edit by The Evil IP address was the big innovation of what had been a simple template. I just built on that and made it work on the sub-page. Hmmm, search their edit history to see whether they were making any other interesting edits around that time... BulbB
  • From an "editprotected" template:
    • You may click [{{fullurl:{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}|action=edit&summary={{urlencode:Editing semi-protected {{pagetype|{{{1|}}}}} [[Template:Editsemiprotected|as requested]] by {{REVISIONUSER}}}}}} here] to perform the edit with an edit summary mentioning the edit request. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You may click here to perform the edit with an edit summary mentioning the edit request.

That is most interesting. Maybe I'm on the trail now. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE: That example did not last long before it was reverted. Nonetheless interesting from a technical standpoint. Maybe this didn't work on normal talk pages because, per mw:API:Edit#Token, I did not supply an edit token. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The fact that REVISIONID can't be substituted and doesn't work in preview sounds like understandable behavior. A preview page is not saved in the database yet, so it doesn't even have a REVISIONID (one assumes). EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey! This seems to work. The wikilink I typed in the block reason field was this: [[Special:PermaLink/591416466#User:Jytdog.E2.80.8E_reported_by_User:FelixRosch_.28Result:_no_vio.29|Permalink]]. This creates a blue item called 'Permalink' in the block log and hides the raw URL. Now all I need is a script (or something) to be able to produce those wikilinks efficiently. Maybe an additional clickable word in your special userlinks template? Only catch is that the admin would have to close and save the 3RR report, and *then* click the special word and issue the block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you guys understand each other. I'm just gonna wait until you're all done and tell me how to do it and what its lilmitations are.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey Bbb23. Just look at the block log of User:ThisisaTest. The last block entry (at 16:51) shows what I'm hoping to do. The entry says 'Edit warring: Permalink'. Try clicking 'Permalink' there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

testing[edit]

  • click [{{fullurl:{{TALKPAGENAME}}|action=edit&summary={{urlencode:This is an edit summary pointing to the [[Special:Permalink/{{REVISIONID}}#This is a new section header to permalink to|permalink]] on my talk page for this edit.}}}} here] to perform the edit with an edit summary
  • click here to perform the edit with an edit summary
bump. this is a test. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, Ed, the test just above basically worked. First I saved the "click here" link and then I came back and clicked on it; that put the permalink to the previous edit into my edit summary. I found the documentation for the MediaWiki application programming interface at MW:API, specifically MW:API:Edit which lists the parameters you can feed into the "edit" command. This stuff is mostly useful for bot programmers, but also has some limited use in templates like {{RMassist}} and the block-user template I've been working on. So, here's a status update:

  • To include the edit adding Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked to the page in the permalink, that edit must be done before actually blocking the user. That's not really any different than the behavior at WP:RMTR; it's just that with the move requests, rather than go back and add a Yes check.svg Done message, the request is just removed from the page.
  • I already have a solution ready, that works the same as the technical move requests to permalink the desired version of the whole Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page. I didn't feel that it was necessary to section-link the move requests because that list rarely grows to a size where section-linking would be really helpful for finding the specific request.
  • The issue is that we've been looking for a more elegant way to section-link the block-user requests. You had reservations about putting {{anchor}}s in the section headings. One option might be to just cut-paste the section title into the permalink, after the template has done the hard part, which is inserting the REVISIONID. Note that the API does have a parameter:
    • section: Section number. 0 for the top section, 'new' for a new section. Omit to act on the entire page
  • which allows me to specify the number of the section that I want to edit. But there is no {{SECTION}} variable that I can find, which would tell me what the number of the section is that I'm currently editing. So the problem is that while I call provide the permalink with a section number, I don't know how to determine what the correct number to feed to the permalink is. That's why I came up with creating an anchor for this purpose; when I create the anchor then I have created an alternative hidden section title, which should never be changed.
  • How about if I pull the anchor out of the section title and move it to the line immediately above the section header? That way the header itself stays the same. Like this. And instead of call it a beta test, just add a new link "permalink" like this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/userlinks. So everything is the same except "block user with permalink" is a new item on the menu.
  • I have to take a break for a while, but if you're agreeable, how about later today when we're both online, I make this live long enough so that we can run a quick "live" test using that test-user that we love to block. If any issues after the quick test, I can quickly revert to the current version. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Testing in User:EdJohnston/Sandbox[edit]

  • I tried out your new preload, and it works. See the results in User:EdJohnston/Sandbox, where I have created a miniature 3RR noticeboard of my own, with just one entry. The only modifications were:
  1. I had to cut and paste the special version of the preload file, called Example which you created, and
  2. I had to manually edit the 'userlinks' template in my Sandbox to replace it with 'Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/userlinks'.
You can observe the successful creation of a permalink in the block log of the long-suffering user ThisIsaTest. Now that this can be tried out in a user sandbox, maybe we can persuade an enthusiastic volunteer (such as User:Bbb23) to try it out on his own and see if it works for him. There is a benefit to not having to modify the 3RR noticeboard for these tests. That way you don't have to look foolish in public. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but even those sandboxes are public if someone wants to look at them, just less public.
To do a really robust test using sandboxes, you would need to create sandboxes for the whole environment. Your sandbox test didn't subst: the anchor. But we already tested that in December (when the anchor was part of the title, not on top of it), and I believe it worked. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
For the anchor to be properly created the editor must enter the report from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring by using "Click here to create a report". If the report is created manually or some other means, perhaps using Twinkle, then the anchor for section linking likely won't work. But that's not a really big problem; just that the permalink will only go to the top of the page rather than a specific section. So to more fully sandbox test you would need a sandbox version of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring also. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Your preload has CURRENTTIMESTAMP twice. Is there any way to get rid of one of them, for example put it inside the userlinks template? EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The first CURRENTTIMESTAMP, when substituted, creates the actual anchor. The second CURRENTTIMESTAMP is a new second parameter being fed into the userlinks template to tell it what section to link to, i.e., that anchor which is the substituted CURRENTTIMESTAMP. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
This is probably the best I can do. If I knew the {{SECTION}} somehow, I could just pass that as parameter 2 to my custom userlinks, and then I would not need to create the anchor. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
From December, here is the test that showed how the anchor worked.
== {{anchor|20131217192533}} [[User:ThisIsaTest]] reported by [[User:Wbm1058]] (Result: 24 hours) ==
 
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|This is a test}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks/sandbox|ThisIsaTest|20131217192533}}
 
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

"20131217192533" is the anchor, which is just the date/time when the request was entered. The anchor is only visible in edit mode and the custom userlinks template is transcluded so you don't see the date/time there either, except in edit mode. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

From reading Wbm1058's comments subsequent to Ed's ping of me, it looks like you're not ready for me. If I'm wrong, please ping me again, and I'll try to help.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, we're getting close. The template code to automatically generate a permalink has been solved by Wbm1058. The remaining question (IMHO) is whether the preload file is getting too ugly and will confuse ordinary civilians who are trying to follow the directions. It's already about 8 out of 10 on confusing and the question is if it is getting more so. Probably I am too much worried about this, and if we just went ahead and changed the preload file it would go through harmlessly. It occurs to me that WP:Article Wizard is a nice example of how to support new people trying to go through the steps of a confusing procedure. This would allow us to step the new submitters of 3RRs through a process and give them advice along the way. But that might take us too far afield. In the interim, a process that lets the hipper admins use permalinks if they want to would certainly be worthwhile. Wbm1058 has been pointing out that my sandbox test is not quite kosher, but I might fix that with two more hours' work. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I just took a quick look at Wikipedia:Article wizard and that system with a lot of Q&A that guides users on a path through sub-pages looks interesting. I haven't really looked at a lot of the beginning-editor oriented help pages much, and some good ideas for enhancing other areas I support like requested moves and merges might be found there. I'm spreading myself thin here (editors are pleading for action at Wikipedia talk:Merging#Merge the MERGE!) so I don't really want to spend too much more time on this now. Maybe later. We could just implement the permalinks without any section linking, or we could try upping the confusion level from 8 to 9 and if that causes too much of a mess in practice, then back off to the simpler version. Probably won't know if there will be too-much-confusion-to-be-practical until we just try it for a while. Your call, Ed. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
In a previous reply you suggested a more complete sandbox test. I've done so at User:EdJohnston/Sandbox, which now shows a modified version of the 3RR noticeboard header. It also has a link called 'Click here to add a new report'. Unfortunately, clicking on that opens an edit buffer with nothing preloaded:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EdJohnston/Sandbox&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Edjohnston/Sandbox/Example&editintro=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring/Editintro
Maybe preloading doesn't work in user space. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I found the problem. It was just a typo. Those can be easy to overlook. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding permalinks to block entries -- part 3[edit]

Thanks for finding the problem! It all seems to work now. If I wrote it up, I could explain to User:Bbb23 how to do the test. Till then, it is of interest to notice that you already use anchors in the WP:RMTR system:

*{{anchor|movereq-Egyptian Constitution of 2014}} '''[[:Egyptian Constitution of 2014]] → {{no redirect|Constitution of Egypt}} {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests|([{{fullurl:Special:MovePage|wpOldTitle={{Urlencode:Egyptian Constitution of 2014}}&wpNewTitle={{Urlencode:Constitution of Egypt}}&wpReason={{Urlencode:Requested at [[WP:RM]] as uncontroversial ([[Special:Permalink/{{REVISIONID}}|permalink]])}}&wpMovetalk=1}} move])|([{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#{{anchorencode:movereq-Egyptian Constitution of 2014}}}} move (@subpage)])}}''' – Only historical constitutions should have "of YEAR#". The current constitution should be located at "Constitution of COUNTRYNAME" without a qualifier. [[User:Article editor|Article editor]] ([[User talk:Article editor|talk]]) 22:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, the anchors cause no confusion here because the user doesn't have to edit the wikitext while filing their report. EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, right. I think those anchors were put there by someone else. At one time that list got pretty long because requests weren't immediately removed after processing. I didn't permalink the anchors there to minimize the risk that the edit summary would overflow its maximum allowed length. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
See User:EdJohnston/Sandbox#What this page is for. This explains how admins can exercise the sandbox and (if they wish) issue a trial block of the dummy account User:ThisIsaTest. Unfortunately non-admins won't be able to see if the test succeeded or not because Mediawiki won't even show them a block form. I left a note for User:Bbb23 so he can try it out if he wants. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Bbb23 has tried out the system. His reaction is at User talk:Bbb23#Testing of 3RR board changes is now open in my Sandbox. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
A small glitch is visible when you edit the 3RR report just above one that was created with an anchor tag. (Though reports are added to the board from the top down they may be edited or closed in any order). Try going to WP:AN3#User:STATicVapor reported by User:Rushton2010 (Result: Protected) and hit the small edit button to the right of the section header. You'll see the anchor tag for the report below sitting at the bottom of the edit window. Maybe people can ignore this? EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't matter if an anchor tag gets accidentally deleted or archived apart from its 'parent' report. The anchor is only used one time, if is used for making a block log entry. After that it doesn't matter. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You manually added that anchor. Keep in mind that I put a comment message on that line advising editors to just ignore the anchor and leave it alone. Right, if it's just above the section header, then logically it becomes the last line of the previous section. Or, I can embed it into the section header itself, which was my original way of doing the anchors. It can be done either way. And correct, after the section is permanent-linked, then it doesn't matter what happens to the anchor as at that point it has served its purpose. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A little help, please[edit]

I created this article from Spanish Wikipedia (don't worry, isn't hard), but my English isn't perfect as i wish, can you make some corrections, please?. Greetings. --Ravave (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ravave: – Sorry, I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to help much. You might try asking a member of Category:User es. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, Thanks and greetings. --Ravave (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki![edit]

Hello, Wbm1058, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

STiki logo.png

Permalinks to diffs -- coming soon to a Wikipedia near you[edit]

Our wish is being granted. This is a feature you asked for in February 2013, and User:EEng requested the same thing in December:

The change can now be seen at https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/commit/ecc8114014ce16bd12b780e7ebbeaf10810b15b0#diff-2539a8201eaddcd9c316c6cd5773c850 and it was committed six days ago. The Gerrit entry was https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/63395/. Thanks to User:Arkanosis and User:Matma Rex for doing this work. Now edit summaries will be able to permanently link to an explanation for whatever was done. – EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: By the way, this will be announced in next week's Tech News, which are being sent to WP:VPT here (this is configurable if someone believes there's a better place, I'd have to look up how to do it). The feature itself will go live on 6 February 2014 per mw:MediaWiki 1.23/Roadmap. Matma Rex talk 20:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I see this is already working at mediawiki.org. For instance mw:Special:Diff/467927 gives a diff. It will be good to announce this at WP:VPT but WP:AN might also benefit from knowing about this feature. It is usable in block logs, for instance. You'll be able to cite a thread at ANI (in a block summary) without fear of the thread being archived and the link no longer working. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Nice! Thanks for letting me know. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Tragically, the Permalink special page is not taking me to sections any more. See a testing page for some examples. Even the permalinks I previously created in my log of blocks are no longer going to sections. This is puzzling. Special:Version shows we are still at the 1.23wmf11 (ae1e2f5) version of Mediawiki, so the software running enwiki has not recently had a version change. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response on my sandbox page. It may interest you to know that wmf12 has been released here and Special:Diff/12345 is working as of today. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sunapee trout listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sunapee trout. Since you had some involvement with the Sunapee trout redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Dude, thank you so much. That makes me feel so much better. At first, I felt like I was being attacked by Wikipedia when Rincewind42 was reverting tons of my edits, but now I see that I shouldn't give up. Thanks for the good advice and I'll keep trying from here! And I'll look at her page.

Although for the Teletubbies thing, I think I'm just going to ask an administrator about that, because two experienced editors are both giving me two different points of view. Rincewind42 seems to be implying that Teletubbies links are not okay at all, and Bkonrad implies with his edits that it is completely fine in disambiguation pages, so how does it sound to settle this once and for all with an administrator? MadisonGrundtvig (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it's worth, Rincewind42 is not an administrator, while Bkonrad is. I'd just let the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote play out some more to see what kind of consensus develops there. I started that discussion because I guessed that sooner or later you would run into someone who reverted that type of edit, and I was right. The guidelines on this aren't as clear as they could be, and consensus does change over time. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

You have a comment at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Discussion. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log/July 2006[edit]

Why did you tag Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log/July 2006 (and a few others like it) for G6? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Because I run user:Merge bot, which creates these, and I cannot delete them myself, because I am not an administrator, as user:Harej, who wrote that bot which I took over is (he deleted these files himself). I would be happy to take care of this mop-task myself if I had the privileges to do so (hint to potential nominators). Those files are outdated and stale. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. I've restored the CSD tags and clarified the reason. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The first WP:G6 reason given is "Deleting dated maintenance categories", that's why I just gave the reason "Deleting dated maintenance categoriespages." The bot never completely clears these, as it only writes the file when there is at least one item left. Thus, the last item(s) removed after the previous bot update must be manually cleared. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

trivial edits[edit]

Wondering why you're making trivial edits like {{IPAlink| → {{IPA link|. Isn't that considered mildly disruptive? It clutters up watch lists for no actual purpose. — kwami (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I finished those edits five days ago, are they just now showing up on watchlists? Although I honestly didn't think of that side effect, they were all marked as minor edits. Ordinarily I wouldn't make that edit just for the sake of it, but as I was also wanting to make null edits to those to clear false-positive transclusions of {{error}}s, I decided to kill two birds with one stone. Probably templates like that which are transcluded on so many pages shouldn't be renamed in the first place, it's a little like renaming a file in that no readers actually see the names. But those redirects do clutter up the list of transclusions for editors attempting to track down the source of a transclusion. Anyhow, it's water under the bridge now. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A proposed move that uses ref tags is confusing the RMCD bot[edit]

See this issue about red error messages at the bottom of WP:RM. When I view WP:Requested moves/Current discussions and click the the 'Discuss' link for this move (search for 'Anna Pou' to find the move entry) it gives a link to the talk page but no section. Normally there is a section link. This leads me to think that the refs are confusing the RMCD bot. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Two issues here. The logic for linking to sections is not as robust as it could be, and my limited experience with regular expressions (regex) has kept that a longer-term issue. One of these days I hope to find a solution. The other issue regarding the missing reflist I think I can solve. This is the first time that I've seen Template:Reflist-talk, that's nice to have an alternative for talk pages. I'll see what I can do. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
One of the proposals in the Help desk discussion was to change WP:RM to bracket the transclusion of Current discussions like so: <noinclude> {{/Current discussions}} </noinclude> . See a comment by User:Fuhghettaboutit. When I tried this in the edit buffer, it did get rid of the red error messages in the full RM listing. I didn't save my change since I don't want to break the world. What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I think Fuhghettaboutit did get a workable solution implemented, where the noinclude tags sandwiched the references only, on the talk page for the specific Katrina/hospital deaths incident. My head can sometimes get spinning with all the transclusions, but I think if you put noincludes on the RM page itself you would effectively block transclusion of the whole subpage – Wbm1058 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Samuel Eto&[edit]

Hi there. After replying to your discussion I tagged the page for speedy deletion and it was in fact erased almost immediately by NawlinWiki. So in case you didn't read my answer, here's a copy:

I've compared this original request to the existing article at Samuel Eto'o. Actually the IP wants some statistical table entries to be changed, namely "La Liga 2004-2005": 37||25||6||1||0||0||7||4||0||45||29||637||24||6||1||0||0||7||4||0||45||28||6 and "Barcelona Total": !145!!108!!26!!15!!3!!0!!41!!18!!9!!201!!129!!35!145!!108!!26!!15!!3!!0!!41!!18!!9!!201!!128!!35 (bold font by me). But as there are no references for the League entries at all, I'm not going to change it. I think we can have this page speedied. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that there would have been any harm in letting it stay up for a week. Now my time spent trying to help a new editor at User talk:218.103.122.51 was a waste. We didn't give them any chance to explain and perhaps provide a source supporting the change. I see you're an admin too, why didn't you just delete it yourself? This page was also useful in pointing out how we don't make it easy for editors to request protected edits of this sort. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't delete the page myself because I commented there and wanted to let it stay for at least a little bit in order to let you and Technical13 read my reasoning. Actually I didn't expect the page to be deleted so soon, but I generally expect the deleting administrator to check whether the content of a page merits a "keep". Apparently this was not the case here. As to your efforts with helping IP 218.103.122.51, I'm glad to see you're trying to help them but do you really need the original botched edit request for that? But if you think it would help I'm willing to temporarily restore the page and histmerge the content to Talk:Samuel Eto'o. De728631 (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
When I tag anything with a "speedy", I generally expect that my "speedy" request might be processed as soon as within the next minute, and would not be surprised if it was; any possible contradictory guidelines notwithstanding. And I admit that it annoys me a bit to see a "speedy" still sitting on a page a week later. If a tag is supposed to stay up for a week, then maybe it shouldn't be called speedy. It's all relative, I know, but a week is not my idea of "speedy". I actually needed to edit that talk page and then go to special:ComparePages to figure out (my best guess) what the editor was really requesting. I think the easiest way to honor that request, if found to be appropriate, would be to simply cut-paste the entire "sandbox". If I was an admin, I might have moved that page, without leaving behind a redirect, to someplace where such a page would not be speedily deleted. As I was suggesting to T-13, maybe he could find the help page explaining what to do in such situations. I'm not aware of any guidance here, so perhaps boldly implementing a solution is appropriate. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Edit requests#Requests for templates: Instead of pasting the code on the talk page, which can affect its readability, just place a link to the /sandbox along with the request and rationale. Except that this isn't a template. But that general approach does seem to me to be the easiest way to provide "a clear and specific description of the requested change". Wbm1058 (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Despite of their name, speedy deletions are rather seldomly processed within the next minute. After all at the least the creators of such pages shall be given the opportunity to contest the deletion. So while it shouldn't take a week for them to be processed, speedy deletion requests are automatically collected in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion which is then worked on by admins every now and then. And from my experiece it generally takes a few hours until such pages are eventually "speedily" deleted.
But back to the edit request. IMO the actual change was clearly not as complex as to merit the creation a of a whole sandbox page. I think also that we don't need to restore the full page history unless the IP can provide sources for these goal statistics. And by the way, T-13 is just fine with the deletion. But if you'd like to have the page restored and moved somewhere for reference and documentation I'm going to do that. De728631 (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Right, generally deletion requests sit for a while, but Murphy's law doesn't respect "generally". What the requester wanted wasn't as obvious to Technical13 as it was to you. Wikipedia:Pending changes level 1 protection would have let the new editor submit the request in a way that could more easily be understood. I agree that creation of a sandbox is more clunky, but any sandboxes created for this purpose could be speedily deleted by an administrator after deciding whether the edit request was reasonable or not. It's only worth restoring the full page history for reference and documentation if we want to pursue more editor feedback about the general issues involved; not for any further discussion of this specific request. Given that, if you want to restore it, I would suggest making it a subpage of Wikipedia talk:Edit requests. But for now I'm just going to keep the issue in the back of my head, until I see the problem happen more often. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NCR Corporation logo.gif[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NCR Corporation logo.gif. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Yes, I'm the editor who removed the image that I uploaded. See talk:NCR Corporation#NCR's logo has just changed. I don't know whether it is worth the effort to save historical logos as their color-scheme changes. In some articles I see sections for historical logos. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Biometals primary topic[edit]

So apparently Mega Man ZX isn't the primary topic for Biometals (a redirect that I didn't create, BTW). That's fine, but then what is the primary topic? IOW, what should people see when they type in "Biometals"? A disambig? Jinkinson talk to me 03:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The way things are now, there is no primary topic, so the disambiguation is "primary". But if you want to make Biometal (biology) primary, I could support that. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Minnesota Fats[edit]

Weird. I tried omitting the "current1" field and it was still turning up an error. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Plaza Francia (Altamira Square)[edit]

Thanks for the redirect. I didn't really know how to do it.--Zfigueroa (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:DOS on IBM PC compatibles at pushd and popd[edit]

Actually, FreeCOM and 4DOS do have these, so your reason is incorrect. Though I am not sure if these really count (especially the latter). It was not mentioned in the article either. (I am also unsure why this article should be in Wikipedia at all.) Keφr 16:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I reverted my edit. As to whether Wikipedia should document DOS commands at all, I think that ship has already sailed: List of DOS commands. This is done more in the sense of a reference manual than a textbook or how-to manual, which I think is OK. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

State Bar of Michigan[edit]

An article I started, which could probably benefit from your attention. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen () 13:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Category deletions[edit]

Regardless of whether the page was useful, standard practice is to delete pages that were created while the creator was evading a ban.

If you feel that the page was useful enough, you're welcome to re-create it. DS (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Minor whine about RMassist[edit]

The 'Discuss' feature of RMassist is a big step forward. What can we do about embedded equal signs in the move reason? Here I did all kinds of gymnastics so I could invoke the reason as "3=Blah blah" instead of just plain "Blah blah". The original problem was that 'Discuss' was creating a discussion page with a blank move reason. Thanks for all your work! EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston! The problem is that the editor had trouble entering the reason in the first place, per the bug documented in {{RMassist}}, specifiying 3= is needed when an equals sign is embedded in the reason. Here is where they fixed it; they hadn't entered any reason in their first edit. But where you see {{{3}}} there needed to be a second "Please put your reason for moving here." and then the editor would have needed to cut/paste in both places. This is getting to be too complicated... I think the solution is to deprecate the unnamed parameter in favor of reason=, just as I've already done in {{Requested move}}. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. But the language in {{Requested move}} still makes 'reason=' optional. Are you intending to fix that? And if someone continues to supply the reason as an unnamed parameter there should be an understandable warning message. Would there be some benefit to rewriting RMassist in Lua? While we are (possibly) making improvements I could always use a 'sig=no' feature if I'm fixing up someone else's entry. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll just handle it the same way in both templates, to avoid inconsistency, so anyone continuing to supply the unnamed parameter will be unaffected, if they don't also use an equals. Mainly just increase the visibility of reason= while downplaying mention of the unnamed alternative. I still need to spend some time learning Lua to convert it. If it had already been converted to Lua, I wouldn't have as easily been able to make the enhancement I just did. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hard to believe someone thinks our current template language is easier than Lua (though I know little about either). The current template language looks to me like random gibberish. It makes regexp look like a sensible well-structured language. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
No argument that the template language isn't extremely mind-bending... it can be that way even to me. I've just got more time invested in figuring it out. Sometime I'll spend more time looking at Lua. I also need to put more time into PHP and regex. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi ! 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.

-- 03:20, Saturday July 26, 2014 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge


Huffpost article[edit]

Hi there! Thanks for sharing this. I too feel that there are valid concerns in this area. I think some editors have used the poor behaviour of purveyors of pseudoscience and religion as a justification for their own biased editing. Sadly, I don't see this situation resolving itself soon as the key to neutralising this issue is prolonged involvement of people without strong feelings on the content (who are less likely to edit such articles in the first place). SFB 19:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Without further ado, I give you ... Template:Delay subst editnotice![edit]

After dealing with the confusion that I had with editing Template:RMassist/preload, I decided to create the above referenced template: {{Delay subst editnotice}}! In fact, I have already made it the editnotice that displays when editing Template:RMassist/preload. Feel free to change to wording of the template, or the template's documentation page. Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There's often more than one way to get a job done. Why didn't I think of that? Though it does show the spurious error message when you view the template (not big deal)... Wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
If that were a concern, I could fix it too, but I don't think it's worth it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Right, I meant to say not a big deal. I agree. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Numbers[edit]

Hi Wbm1058,

You asked a while ago about how many editors were using VisualEditor each month, rather than the each-day stats that are given on the dashboard. It appears that the most recent answer is that a bit under 1800 editors here at the English Wikipedia saved an edit with VisualEditor during the month of June. This represents about 5% of the people who have (ever) opted in to VisualEditor (most of whom are not currently active editors) and almost 1.5% of all registered editors who made any edit at all last month.

@Risker:, you might be interested in these numbers, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Episode list[edit]

As requested by you, I converted both {{Episode list}} and {{Episode list/sublist}} to a module (Module:Episode list). No major problems arose, and the small ones that did were fixed. The only downside is that this isn't an ultimate fix. Whether they display or not, parameters are still part of the inclusion on the main list pages; however, everything is still done more efficiently. IIRC, Season 11 of the Simpsons (ignore the script error, it is completely unrelated) was ~30kB less inclusion. moluɐɯ 23:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Wbm1058 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened[edit]

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Linwood[edit]

Hi.

Regarding this topic, You asked about the Linwood name. If you email me, or I can email you, I can tell you. (I added an email but I do not know how to send them).

Thanks.

BSL

List of current NFC team rosters[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of current NFC team rosters, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://partners.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1246940.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)