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, Pinxit[edit]

Request[edit]

Your bot removed a valid although misplaced request. You can easily improve the project by creating the requested redirect. Thank you. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. you can do this yourself. Just click on the red link to fecit, and enter the following text to create the redirect page: #REDIRECT [[Pinxit]] and then save the page. Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I just found that there is another way to do this. Go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects (WP:Redirects for creation redirects there). Either method is fine, but you might need to use the second method if you're not autoconfirmed. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but as an IP editor I can't create anything. I'll try the other route. Problem with such pages, in case you've never looked there, is that they have huge backlogs. Articles for creation sometimes has a backlog of over a thousand submissions. Odd that I couldn't find that page, though, so thank you--I knew it had to exist. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 23:18, 31 December 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)

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

Discussions are consolidated at /Adding permalinks to block log entries. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2014 (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)

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)

@7&6=thirteen: I just changed the section headers to use sentence case. Some might be tempted to place {{Prose}} and {{Third-party}} tags on it, but I won't. It's not a personal priority of mine to convert the lists to prose or locate independent sources about the Michigan Bar. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
As an aside, I used to have an office in the Lafayette Building, in which there was the State Bar on Michigan (Avenue)! Of course, both the building and the bar are no more. <{:>{)> Happy holidays.

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.

-- 01:53, Friday December 19, 2014 (UTC)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbm1058 (talkcontribs) 00:53, 10 June 2014

So I just noticed that "New Message (simulated automatically as part of The Wikipedia Adventure)" signs itself with an non-substituted {{currentdate}}. I wonder why that is? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

List of places in England with counterintuitive pronunciations: A–L[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of List of places in England with counterintuitive pronunciations: A–L, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: List of places in the United Kingdom and Ireland with counterintuitive pronunciations. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings[edit]

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates[edit]

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Polygraph examiner[edit]

Sorry - I didn't mean to be redirecting articles even while you were in the process of providing links to them! 0;-D Actually it was one of your links that called my attention to that unsourced stub. As you saw, I put some sourced information about polygraph examiners into the Polygraph article before redirecting it there. Sounds like you are OK with that? --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, I just tagged it with template:R with possibilities. Someone could expand it into a more detailed and sourced article about the profession. I was interested in the idea that polygraph examiner "is a lay term for the forensic psychophysiologist". If that could be confirmed, it would be nice to add that link back to the polygraph article, if the profession view themselves as forensic psychophysiologists. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I don't find that term at the APA website;[1] I wonder who uses it? --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm: http://itrpolygraph.com/ – but the Marine Corp lends some support to this: Marine Corps Enlisted Job Descriptions: MOS 5822 -- Forensic Psycho-physiologist (Polygraph Examiner)Wbm1058 (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk page errors[edit]

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

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

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

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

I found one more:

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

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case[edit]

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Magnifier (Windows)#Requested move 23 August 2014[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Magnifier (Windows)#Requested move 23 August 2014. Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Pithecanthropus erectus‎[edit]

Hi, the redirect "stood" for eight years for the same reason why many other obscure incorrect redirects do: No one searched for it, so no one discovered the mistake. Pithecanthropus erectus‎ is a binomial. The species erectus is now classified as Homo erectus. Therefore the genus name Pithecanthropus becomes a synonym of Homo, and P. erectus‎ becomes a synonym of H. erectus. It cannot be a synonym of "java man", because Java man is at best a subspecies of Homo erectus, H. e. erectus. A species cannot be a synonym of a subspecies. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Pithecanthropus erectus is a binomial." By that you mean Binomial nomenclature? The first part of the name identifies the genus to which the species belongs; the second part identifies the species within the genus. So, Pithecanthropus is the genus and erectus‎ is the species? Well, this is interesting. You have found yet another "obscure redirect" to correct? Wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
A binomial is a name consisting of a genus and a species name. Bi refers to two, and nomial refers to name. A genus name can only be a synonym of another genus name. A binomial can only be a synonym of another binomial, etc. That's just how it works. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I see that you've been participating at in an article review at Talk:Java Man/GA1. If there is a consensus there for your changes to these longstanding redirects, then I suppose it's OK by me. I'm not near being an expert in this area. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, you should be aware that there are many taxonomic synonyms that are left redirecting to the wrong articles due to reclassification, and many other such issues that are left for years. An example from today, Lepidotus. It has been a separate article since 2009, though it is just a disused spelling of Lepidotes. I just redirected it earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I just ran into this when patrolling Category:Invalid redirects. Java man said that Pithecanthropus erectus‎ redirected to it. So those disambiguation hatnotes need to be moved to the new destinations of the redirects. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: OK, I fixed the hatnotes to be consistent with the new redirect targets. I do find it curious that the new target of Pithecanthropus (Homo) doesn't mention the word (other than in the hatnote), whereas in the former target—Java Man—"Pithecanthropus" is repeated 25 times. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Dab moves-Explanation of reversions[edit]

Hi Wbm1058, about your moves of the Japanese disambiguation pages: my actions were to restore the disambiguation page to the stable title at the base name, as the standard practice for reversal of controversial moves. Unfortunately, many of the cities listed on these pages were moved without discussion last month, resulting in the large number of links. Hopefully many of these can be solved via redirects. However, the disambiguation pages are the stable titles, and there is no correct place to redirect the pages without them at the base names (the cities are definitely not the correct target of base name redirects). I'm sorry that this creates a lot of links (I know, I worked on DPL for a long time), but the default is to return to the stable titles and discuss from there. Dekimasuよ! 20:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, there is ongoing discussion of the undiscussed moves at Shizuoka, Shizuoka. Because the city pages sat at the plain titles for a month before reversion, I think many of the links you mentioned can be fixed by figuring out which are attached to redirects that turned into double redirects when the cities were moved to the plain titles. I would have done more of this myself, but there were more than a dozen pages involved. I guess it goes to show why mass, undiscussed moves that delete dab pages along the way create work for everyone. Dekimasuよ! 21:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm skeptical that any of these were "stable" with hundreds of pages linking to disambiguation. I responded at Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka#Requested move. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
They didn't have hundreds of pages linking to them, but they were stable. I don't know if someone went through and depiped links in the last month; I haven't done that much research. But you can check the histories and the page moves (where the mover didn't delete the dab entirely). For example, Chiba and Gifu were dab pages continuously with no moves since 2004. Dekimasuよ! 00:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
At the moment, it's looking to me like one of the main problems was Template:Metropolitan cities of Japan, which did have piping removed by the editor who moved the dabs. I have fixed a few links on that template, as have others. Dekimasuよ! 00:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dekimasu, Kirin13: OK, I found these at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig/Recently added. I would have assumed that your fixes should have removed them from that list. But this isn't something I regularly patrol, so I don't know the ins and outs of it. Chiba and Gifu look OK now. But there is an issue with Nagano. At lot of articles think that the Olympics were held there, and the few I checked are linking directly to that (it's not via a template). Were the Olympics held in the city or the prefecture? I wouldn't know the answer to that offhand. Oh, I see. The dab says (via indentation) they were held in Nagano, Nagano. So how come it's taken so long to fix those links to disambiguation? Wbm1058 (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking back at a stable version of Nagano (20 April 2014—it wasn't changed until it moved on 10 September 2014), observe the hatnote. It says:

"Nagano" redirects here. For other uses, see Nagano (disambiguation).

Now that's something that I do patrol for. Shortly after the article moved on Sept. 10 – actually on Sept. 25, I "fixed" the hatnote to support that move. This was flagged by Category:Invalid redirects. So, indeed the long-term stable position for Nagano, at least between April and September, was to redirect to Nagano, Nagano. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have replied on Nagano at User talk:Dekimasu#Nagano x3. Dekimasuよ! 01:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Small Wikipedia template categories[edit]

Category:Small Wikipedia template categories, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Momoko Tsugunaga[edit]

Hi,

You mentioned the page Momoko Tsugunaga in one of your posts at Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka#Discussion. There are so many idols like her in Japan and I personally am too old and too square to understand everything the kids are into these days. Your point about Chiba, Japan a good one though. At first glance, I assumed that to be Chiba (city), Japan, but as you say it's hard to tell. Interestingly, her "hometown" is simply given as Chiba-ken (千葉県) on her Japanese Wikipedia page, which is a little unusual because idols typically have lots male fans who know everything (from blood type to favorite "type" (of guy)) about their favorites. I googled her (in Japanese) and found one (fan)site for female idols which lists her hometown as Kashiwa, Chiba. Not sure if you needed to know any of that so just toss this in the trash if you want.

IMO, Momoko Tsugunaga does seem to be very poorly cited so maybe a {{BLP sources}} should be added. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia so I'm not totally clear about using templates like that. Do you think that would be acceptable in this case? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to tell you about that, since the sources are all in Japanese. I can't really evaluate them myself. I'd speculate that if she wants to preserve any privacy she might not want her fans to know too many details. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Understand. I was simply referring to the fact that none of the sources are being used to support any of her biographical information. They are just Amazon-like pages for DVD/book releases and chart positions. I'll post on the project page and see what they say. Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a common problem, unfortunately. See {{Not in citation given}} which is a template you can use if the sources don't confirm the facts as claimed. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Face-smile.svg - Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate template parameters[edit]

Your edits reverted my fix to remove duplicate parameters and these files will soon be placed in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. I'm not watching them, nor am I watching this page, so I leave it to you to fix the issues. --  Gadget850 talk 22:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gadget850: Right, already taken care of. See Template talk:Non-free use rationale logo#Override fields. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

bot help
Thank you, user who knows the secret to winning the Race Against The Machine, for helpful bots and for cleaning up yourself ("removing WP:OVERLINK to an everyday word"), for redirects and templates such as {{Forms of energy}}, for detailed analysis and offering to serve as arbitrator: "Don't underestimate how far I'm willing to go to read the background", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

唐山 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ''唐山''. Since you had some involvement with the '唐山' redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've no problem with deleting that, it was a workaround I had to make to satisfy another editor who felt that Chinese characters are legitimate search terms in English Wikipedia and that such characters should not be italicized in hatnotes. Things seem happy as long as there's no redirect-hatnote on the Tangshan article. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Encouragement[edit]

Glad to see you're back in. Don't let the guidemakers get you down: each year there are some who will straight-up reject candidates just because they're not an admin, which I think is very short-sighted. The important thing is having more non-admins and female candidates run in the election—unfortunately the latter is still scarce this cycle, but it's encouraging that the former is more numerous than usual. Even if you don't get elected, I think having more non-admins run each year will eventually result in an ArbCom more representative of the community. Altamel (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

Thanks for sorting out Mary Cholmondeley (heiress) with good grace. I'm afraid I assumed that it wasn't done as her name appeared on a "things to do" pile. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I found it because of the merge templates; I sometimes help out at WP:WikiProject Merge. Like to give prioity to biographical forks. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:RMtalk[edit]

Template:RMtalk has been nominated for merging with Template:Requested move. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding Template:RMassist/editintro[edit]

What is the purpose of Template:RMassist/editintro? From how it looks at the present time, I could only ascertain that the template would have use if the "Contested technical requests" section of WP:RMTR was moved over to its own page so that this template could be an editnotice for the page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

When there are requests at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, click on the "(discuss)" link, and that will open up an edit window with this edit intro at the top. This is what the admins such as Anthony and Ed do, but really any editor can contest a technical request this way, and bypass the step of moving it to the "Contested technical requests" section. I just haven't advertised this yet, as I considered this new funcionality to be in "beta". Feel free to try it yourself the next time you want to contest a technical request. You have to be on the subpage for this feature to work, it doesn't work on the main WP:RM page. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
See also Template talk:RMassist for more discussion of this nifty feature. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Arrowsmith School[edit]

If my move was not the correct way to do it, can you please rename it and do it the correct way? I already gave reasons for keeping the title Arrowsmith School and am open to further discussion. But for now can you keep it at Arrowsmith School? Thanks.--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to move "Arrowsmith School" back to "Arrowsmith Program" (like I did before) for reasons I explained on the talk page. I strongly disagree with Taeyebaar. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would appreciate help or advice. Thanks. Eaqq (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I just read what you wrote about how I didn't name change the article following procedure. I wasn't fully aware of what the procedure is supposed to look like or I would have done it the right way. I am new to editing Wikipedia and most of my edits are minor spelling fixes, not anything fancy. Eaqq (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Arrowsmith Program. Let's keep the discussion centralized there. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox template loop[edit]

Hi Wbm1058, Thanks for help re infobox; seems to be working. Thanks. Regards. Eagleash (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh[edit]

A convention for naming geographic locations in Bangladesh is proposed. You are invited to discuss. – nafSadh did say 01:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank You For The Help![edit]

Wanted to stop by and personally thank you for helping me fix up the Boeing 777X page! With your help, we were able to make the page look more professional with what the future 777X will look like.

Thank you again. And have a great week! --PilotJaguar1996 (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor[edit]

Seeing as you performed the task last time, could you add another year to Template:Progress box? Unfortunately, Category:Articles lacking sources is quite long. Thanks! Altamel (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Yes check.svg DoneWbm1058 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

RMtalk / Requested move[edit]

I will leave it to you and Steel1943 to carry out the merge/deprecate plan. Let me know if there are any problems. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Wbm1058, at the present time, I have no objections to your plans. Granted, I'd rather just see {{RMtalk}} become a redirect to {{Requested move}} and then replace all instances of {{RMtalk}} in instructions with {{Requested move|talk=yes}}, but ... for the time being, I have no objections. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Good, I see that {{RMtalk}} was never fully updated to use the new RM Lua module. I'll do that now. This is a step-by-step process, feel free to check in with any questions or issues you might have along the way. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
@Steel1943: I'm about done with the changes. I tagged {{RMtalk}} as a {{Deprecated template}}, per "The {{Deprecated template}} template notifies users that a given template has been replaced by a different one. This is useful when usage is different (so a redirect won't work)" – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks good! By the way, what functions does {{RMtalk}} still have that {{Requested move}} doesn't have, just so I understand? Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem's not that the function isn't there, it's that you cannot pass a template parameter with a redirect. So while

{{subst:requested move|Proposed new name|Reason for move.|talk=yes}}

is the same as

{{subst:RMtalk|Proposed new name|Reason for move.}}

the simple redirect equivalent

{{subst:requested move|Proposed new name|Reason for move.}}

is not, because while talk=yes is the default for RMtalk (indeed that's its raison d'être), talk=no is the default for {{Requested move}}. Thus, redirecting would undo its entire purpose. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Right, which would have been the purpose behind updating all documentation to remove all references of {{RMtalk}}, which was the purpose behind the merge request I submitted. I hope I'm explaining this well; the purpose behind the merge discussion I started is similar to the discussion that resulted in {{Other uses-section}} becoming a redirect to {{About}}. (The discussion happened here, and since then, I've "wised-up" a bit and realized that redirecting (or merging) is better than deleting for reasons I previously did not understand.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Either way, I'm not going to press the matter. It may be something I revisit at a much later time, but that time is not now. Either way, it works! Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Headings of Requested move[edit]

Why including headings as part of a template? There is already a subject/headline box. --George Ho (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

For editor convenience. See the discussion Here. This ensures that section headers are unique, i.e., so there will not be two sections on the same talk page both titled "Requested move". The {{Requested move}} documentation explains how customized section headers can still be used, see Template:Requested move § Custom header. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I've found (err, a beta version of my bot has found) three open RM's which are malformed, e.g., this one. The bot is not picking up the section links for these. It doesn't work when there are comments inserted between the section header and the RM template. Having the template write the section header, at least initially ensures that doesn't happen. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

RMCD bot deleting discussions[edit]

I'm not sure whether you noticed, but this happened once yesterday, too. I figured the problem was not on the bot's side, but thought the extra example might help now in case you are working on something. Dekimasuよ! 18:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I am working on improving the bot's robustness. I have identified a place where error checking wasn't being done, and am in the process of making it report malformed requests. Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't noticed that glitch. That's another issue where I have an idea of what the problem is and how to address it, so I'll make a code enhancement there too. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
For the malformed requests language, "Did you submit your request by using subst:requested move?" can be read to imply either that the request is malformed because the request has not been submitted using subst:requested move, or that the error was caused by using subst:requested move. Can we try a different wording, e.g. "Did you remember to submit your request by..." or something like that? Dekimasuよ! 21:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I already changed it to use "Did you remember to", based on your last edit summary ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

State Bar of Michigan[edit]

I don' have a preference. I started the article and hoped that others would get on the Band wagon and work on it. As to tags, I am not fond of 'drive by tagging.' I like to fix things, not tag them. See my user page. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen () 18:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen: I hear you, that's why I didn't tag it. Sorry, I'm gonna pass on joining the bandwagon, as I've got too many other things on my plate. Like dealing with too many drive-by {{merge}} tags ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 18:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion venues[edit]

Hi. You do a lot of good work around Wikipedia but before you start criticising Technical 13 you need to learn a lot about Wikipedia discussion procedures yourself. I would be grateful if you would post your comments in appropriate places. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I realise it was in good faith but with this edit you just broke another golden rule of talk page etiquette. If you want people to take you seriously you need to be more careful. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, again I apologize. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)