User talk:BU Rob13

Please feel free to leave a message for me here. You can click the link in the box below to do so. Please be sure to link to relevant articles/diffs and sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Adding content within an irrelevant subsection on my page will likely result in no response.

Closing your sections

Thanks for listing Catherine Zeta-Jones at ANRFC. Its very odd that one editor keeps closing your sections. I dont think its a big deal and in fact shows they dont understand basic reading habits....first thing all will look at is the closed section...thus i am not sure why they would want to make a section stand-out so much. Have we run into eachother before? -- Moxy (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe we have. I've reverted, since there's absolutely no reason to collapse the entire section, including the notice of a listing at ANRFC (which is standard). He can collapse just the vote counting if he wants to, but whatever. ~ Rob^Talk 14:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Finals

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points. In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [1]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [2]—nothing before 2016. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue. To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here. A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We wish all the contestants the best of luck! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
3. DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
5. Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

DYK for Kojo Aidoo

On 5 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kojo Aidoo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Canadian football fullback Kojo Aidoo appeared in two direct-to-TV movies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kojo Aidoo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kojo Aidoo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

De-bolding nickname quotes

Per MOS:QUOTEMARKS#Article openings, "When a title is shown altered in the lead section, any added quotation marks should not be in bold," do you think you could come up with a script that de-bolds nickname quotes? It's a little thing that I'm sure many people are unaware of. Lizard (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a really annoying style rule! The short answer is that I wouldn't be the best person for the task. The program I use for all my botwork (WP:AWB) does a good job of handling repetitive tasks within articles, but it does a really bad job of finding which articles it should do those tasks to. Unless there's a category of articles you want checked, AWB isn't a good fit. Even then, this sounds like semi-automated work, not automated work. You'd need some type of editor review to pick up false positives. ~ Rob^Talk 21:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I"d just change the stupid rule. People do so on a regular basis. Montanabw^(talk) 01:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi Rob, would you be able to post your message about auto-assessment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing? We don't have a lot of unassessed articles there, but with over 10,000 tagged, we may have some that are tagged but not assessed for other projects (geography, etc) I think it's a good idea for that project, but not sure it has met the 1000 unassessed article threshold. Montanabw^(talk) 18:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: For any project that I didn't post to, you're welcome to either link to User:BU RoBOT/autoassess (which contains a longer form of the message at the top) or copy-paste what I did paste in other projects. The 1,000 cut-off is not a cut-off persay; it's just what I used to identify the projects most likely to have use for this task. Unfortunately, your described use is likely not possible. In my opinion, every project would benefit from auto-assessment, but there was no consensus for such a widespread task at the village pump discussion. Instead, I'm only able to autoassess for a WikiProject's articles if the project opts-in. In other words, if Horse racing opted in, I could assess class within the Horse racing template, but my bot would have to leave Geography and other project templates alone even if they needed assessment on the same page. That's kind of limiting, but it is what it is. If you think Geography or another specific project could benefit from the assessments at Horse racing, you'd have to bring it up with Geography and talk to them about opting in to the task. ~ Rob^Talk 21:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

That's weird. But I suppose it has to be the way it has to be. More work. I wonder if you could post an automated notice on all project talk pages that explains that this tool is available? Montanabw^(talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I could do it easily using AWB, but I also was trying not to spam projects it wouldn't benefit. I think most editors who contribute at "minor" projects will also have at least one major project watchlisted, so hopefully everyone interested sees the notice somewhere and brings it back to their project. ~ Rob^Talk 02:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Markaz

Hello Rob - I saw your comments at Talk:Markaz about a sock. Do you think there's another one - Küçücük - I'm not sure what to do about it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shafinusri. I filed an SPI report. If you have WP:Twinkle, you can do so yourself in the future by going to the potential sock's talk page, going to the TW drop-down, clicking ARV, and then selecting "Sockpuppet" under report type. ~ Rob^Talk 16:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't have a clue what Twinkle is until I just looked it up, so thank you! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Kane County Eagles

Hi: Just a note that per the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kane County Eagles, the article was userfied to your user space (by another user). It is located at User:BU Rob13/Kane County Eagles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Guillaume Allard-Caméus

On 7 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Guillaume Allard-Caméus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Canadian football fullback Guillaume Allard-Caméus is a two-time Vanier Cup champion? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Guillaume Allard-Caméus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Guillaume Allard-Caméus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Concerning bot questions and answers

Hello, and thank you for your reply concerning assessments. I was in no hurry and far --far--far from being knowledgeable on some aspects of Wikipedia and didn't know who to address my concerns towards. I did notice an editor in 2012 assessing article prematurely. This is causing the bot headaches (or the operator--LOL) I am sure because some start articles are nowhere near C-class but now two projects end up reflecting they are. I had a problem with one of those articles when I reassessed it back to start it would automatically go back to C-class. I don't know what is up with that but will find out. I will look at the bot again as I thought I saw where I could change an assessment and input something that would ensure the bot would not reassess it again. It sucks that someone would prematurely asses articles far above their actual classification, and not just a few, but I am looking into it.

Again, thanks for your reply, Otr500 (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Otr500: I think that if anyone selects "yes" for a b#, it automatically assesses as C class. This seems like a bug in the WPBannerMeta series of templates. I'll take a look. ~ Rob^Talk 02:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I was able to hide the B-class assessment and correct it. Otr500 (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Marv Allemang

On 9 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marv Allemang, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Canadian football center Marv Allemang was moved to the Ottawa Rough Riders in a secret equalization draft designed to improve poorly-performing teams? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marv Allemang. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Marv Allemang), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request BU RoBOT 17

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 17 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 15:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 17 has been approved. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Cornish diaspora

Bit hasty closure there in my opinion. DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: The discussion went on for seven days (the typical length of deletion discussions) and was listed under "Old discussions" at WP:TFD. There was unanimous agreement that it was redundant. Did you have a specific concern with this template being deleted? If so, I may be willing to reopen the discussion to allow you to voice it. ~ Rob^Talk 16:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a link to the discussion for any passersby who care to look. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_1#Template:Cornish_diaspora. ~ Rob^Talk 16:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

A discussion involving the nominator and only two other people is hardly a consensus for anything. No attempt made to involve the relevant Wikiproject, or to advertise the proposed deletion on the talk pages of affected articles where it might be seen by editors with knowledge to contribute. DuncanHill (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

All transclusions had a notice transcluded above them as part of the TfD process and the creator of the template was notified. If a WikiProject has signed up for WP:ALERTS and placed a project banner on the talk page of the discussion, they were informed as well. Three editors at a TfD discussion is a "good" discussion, unfortunately. I've made attempts to get increased participation (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive279#State_of_TfD, for example), but most editors have no interest in the template space. ~ Rob^Talk 16:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing came up on watchlist for any of the articles using the template. Nothing was posted to the Cornwall Wikiproject, and as you know, having checked the talk page of the template before closing the debate, it was tagged as part of that project. Three editors including the nominator is not a good discussion. Most editors never get any notice that a template affecting articles on their watchlist is proposed for deletion until someone comes along and removes it from the articles. DuncanHill (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 18

This task has been approved for trial. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Rob, I just a few comments looking over the test edits.

• Are you tagging |needs-infobox=yes? See this diff for an example of where it should be tagged as needing an infobox.
• Can you add |importance= to the template? It makes it easier for me when I go to assess their importance (less typing).

Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: I think I mentioned at the bot requests that I'm going to handle that separately with a second run-through of all articles. It's easier to handle it all at the end than in two steps (new articles, old articles). And sure, the importance will be added. ~ Rob^Talk 21:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks again Rob! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 19

Your recent bot request has been approved for trial. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)