Jump to content

User talk:MB

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 209.83.19.146 (talk) at 20:11, 27 November 2020 (→‎Penn Club of New York Historic Landmark: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mexican IP, image syntax

Ugh, this guy undoing correct image syntax is annoying. He's like an LTA. Why would someone do this?

List of IPs used so far:

  • 187.232.104.77
  • 187.232.6.117
  • 187.232.81.85
  • 187.232.1.253
  • 187.232.115.127
  • 187.232.50.13 (?)
  • 2806:103E:2:64CD:0:0:0:0/64
  • 2806:103E:2:6902:4941:342E:A04E:D3FF

Raymie (t • c) 03:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 187.232.49.16 is him too. Raymie (t • c) 05:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raymie, I fixed 10 or so tonight. Most of their edits are adding logos or other minor fixes, sometimes with or without the correct syntax undo. And a couple of times it is only the undo. Seems to be just misguided. This is why I agree with every proposal to require accounts. There is no way to leave messages for this guy. MB 05:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Raymie, 187.232.113.0 today. Hitting some of the same articles they previously broke. I don't think this qualifies at LTA - it's not mischief, just misguided. I don't know of a good way to deal with this. MB 04:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither, and honestly right now I'm not quite up to handling it. Raymie (t • c) 05:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding 187.232.35.38 to this list and pinging @Mvcg66b3r and Tbhotch: as they encountered this user and reverted their edits. I really have no clue what to do. Raymie (t • c) 07:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Raymie: Adding 170.211.79.189: Unsourced edits at WMC-TV and KFVS-TV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was just a test. Having clicked that IP, I'd've seen their history. At most, I'd warn them, and if disruption persist, like in XHELG-FM, I'd ask for protection. (CC) Tbhotch™ 15:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mvcg66b3r: That IP doesn't match the location or edit patterns of the others. All the IPs involved trace to Aguascalientes, Mexico, and at least in IPv4 are 187.232.x.x. Raymie (t • c) 17:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
187.232.69.113 today MB 23:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contact

Hello dear MB , I just wanted to talk with you, please give me some information about yourself on social media and let me contact you. Arminzo (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MB can you help me . ? 

Bnl.yt (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Alamir

Thanks for cleaning up Mahmoud Alamir.

Any objection to asking that the history be WP:HISTSPLIT with the hijacked versions moved to a temporary location, such as user:محمود الأمير/sandbox or Draft:Mahmoud Alamir (Australian scientist), then speedy-deleted as WP:G11/advertising and/or WP:CSD#U5 blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host?

I think it's important to get this out of the edit history of that page, but revision-deletion isn't the best way in this case.

If you do object to that, do you have any objections to asking for revision-deletion under RD5 "Valid deletion under deletion policy, executed using RevisionDelete" citing CSD G11/unambiguous advertising. It would be silly to have to send the page to AFD for the specific purpose of getting those revisions deleted under RD5.

Before you answer, I will play "devils' advocate" hat and say that even though this is an autobiography, whether it is "unambiguous advertising" is in that grey area - many editors would say "of course" but there are probably a few who would say "let's be very strict about speedy deletion, in this case, draftify or userfy and MFD." I'm not in that camp with respect to these revisions, but I expect at least 10% of experienced editors would be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davidwr, I don't care about this being in the edit history - I am unaware of any policy that says it should be removed. I don't have any objection to you asking either. MB 16:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Split, deletion, or revision-deletion at the administrator's discretion requested.[1] Other editor notified.[2] davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Reversion of my Bayer Matrix redirects here

You reverted my addition of a "Bayer Matrix redirects here" on Bayer filter Your justification was "Reverted good faith edits by 73.136.254.175 (talk): Bayer Matrix doe NOT redirect here" If I type "Bayer Matrix" into wikipedia's search box it takes me to Bayer filter with the following text on the top 

Bayer filter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Bayer matrix)

This link, Bayer matrix, likely also goes to Bayer filter at this time.(Try it, or even just hover over it to see the preview)

I don't know what redirecting means in the context of Wikipedia if neither of those counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.136.254.175 (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

73.136.254.175, the article was listed in Category:Missing redirects which indicated Bayer Matrix did not redirect to the article. There was a redirect from Bayer matrix (lower case "m") which I have added back to the article. I believe that was was your intent. The fact that you were redirected to the article when you entered Bayer Matrix in the search box was an anomaly of the search function. Notice that Bayer Matrix is a redlink, indicating it doesn't exist (and therefore can't be a redirect) - which is why your change put the article into the missing redirect category. MB 03:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European date format

Thanks for your edits on Barbara L. Kelly. However, in the infobox, her birth date now reads "June 2, 1966" and I would much prefer the dmy format. However, having consulted a few formatting guidelines here on WP including the Manual of Style for dates, I can't find how to do it. There must be some sort of shortlink. Excuse my ignorance / inexperience. Can you, please, either emlighten me where I find such a shortlink or do the formatting yourself? Thanks. – Aklein62 (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aklein62, done. MB 15:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox broadcasting network

Just as a corollary to the Multimedios Televisión edits, I actually have been meaning to deprecate {{Infobox broadcasting network}} ({{Infobox network}}) for some time.

I created {{Infobox radio network}} as its radio-side replacement (it accepts most of the same parameters) and then there's {{Infobox broadcasting network convert}} which is a substable wrapper to convert to {{Infobox television channel}}. Some of the uses of the broadcasting network infobox really should be {{Infobox company}} or {{Infobox organization}}, tbh. Raymie (t • c) 17:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Messina

I corrected the errors you introduced into the article. There was some discrepancy between your stated intentions in the edit summaries and the actual results. Palermo is not in Tuscany. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna-Hypatia, thanks for fixing that. MB 13:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter's Basilica Edit

May I ask you why my edit was reverted? I seemed to do nothing wrong. But I would love to know the reason behind your action, probably something I am not aware of. Thanks.

Note: Re-reading my request, I find that I sound a bit rude, but I promise I am trying to be respectful, not rude :-). I would love to hear from you soon. GucciNuzayer (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GucciNuzayer, Flag icons are not used in most infoboxes, only if they represent the place (such as a city or country). If a building, church, or a person is in or from a place, we don't use the flag of the place in the infobox. MB 19:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will remember it. GucciNuzayer (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Catherine Stefani

Hi MB - a belated note of gratitude for your proofreading and edits to Catherine Stefani. I've learned from them and made notes! Sukey (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Sukey[reply]

Ruhana Khanna

Good morning Please I want to know why the page "Ruhana Khanna" is being redirect. Idoghor Melody (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Idoghor Melody, I was not the editor who changed the article to a redirect. The editor that made the change left an edit summary explaining they thought the subject did not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. You should read both of those. If you can find more sources with in-depth coverage, you may be able to create an article. I would also recommend you use the WP:AFC process. MB 14:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Pls are you a Nigerian? Idoghor Melody (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Manor Mill, Chadderton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Stott.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Information icon Hello, I'm GiantSnowman. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Khassa Camara have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.Template:Z186 GiantSnowman 11:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, I don't know why you thought this edit was not constructive. I enlarged a small image, expanded the short description, and removed a redundant field. I removed |full_name= because the name is identical to the article title, there is no need to repeat information in an infobox per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. You may have been triggered because there was a reference on the name, but there is no need to provide a specific reference in an infobox as to the subjects name; that ref was not used elsewhere. MB 14:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, there is clear long-standing consensus at WT:FOOTBALL that in situations where the full name and the article name are the same, we still display the full name. This is to prevent IPs adding fake names etc. as they often do. If you don't agree please feel free to raise the issue at WT:FOOTBALL. You should not have reverted me per WP:BRD. GiantSnowman 15:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish See above. We don't use |birth_name= if it is equal to the title or |name=. I have been treating |full_name= the same way as redundant. GS thinks differently, and I don't see the IP vandalism reason as very good - anyone can vandalize an existing full_name as easily as they can add a fake one. As far as consensus at WT:FOOTBALL, I found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 135#Idrissa Niang which doesn't seem to be to be a very clear consensus to me. Even if there are other discussions, it's still a Wikipedia:LOCALCONSENSUS. Should we discuss this in a central place, like MOS:INFOBOX? MB 18:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not remembering right off-hand being deeply involved in this, but I deal with so much template stuff I can forget. I agree with MB that "our topic sees some extra vandalism" is not a rationale for a divergence in template practice. This is yet another of those old "our wikiproject is own special kingdom" things that can lead to a lot of unproductive strife, and it's especially fraught with hazards when it comes to infoboxes. E.g. the community decision to stop putting ethnicity in infoboxes is something that plenty of wikiprojects would probably like to undo in "their" articles, but they are not empowered to do that, per WP:CONLEVEL policy. If there's a vandalism issue, that's a patrolling and enforcement problem. The best way to avoid drive-by i-box vandalism by IPs is (aside from semi-protecting one subject to ongoing spates of vandalism) is probably to remove all parameters that are not necessary, since the average "Wouldn't it be funny to add Jack Mehoff as a name here?" goofball is not going to look up template documentation and figure out what extra params they can add. And editors are already going to be alert to people radically changing a name in an existing param. All that said, I'm just going by what's been said so far in this little thread; there may be other background worth looking at.

I would also agree, though, that refs do not belong in the infobox but the article, especially if they have not in fact been used in the article body yet, even if there are a handful of good reasons to use one again in an infobox, e.g. when the datum in question is frequently disputed. I don't personally have a strong opinion on whether infoboxes should or should not repeat a name if it matches the title, but if there's already a site-wide consensus record on that question then it should be followed. I do see that infoboxes have a header at their very top that gives the subject's name, and this most often matches the article title (which also usually matches the bold name in the lead sentence, though less often with bios). But I get the impression this is not about that at all, but only about repeating a name again in |full_name= and/or |birth_name=. I do recall consensus discussions, including a semi-recent one, to not do things like that when the results would be redundant (not sure if it was strictly about these parameters, though I do think it was about {{infobox person}} and its children. I would have to go dig around to find it again and be sure.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: forgot to re-ping GiantSnowman.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited football articles for nearly 15 years. I am in the top 50 of editors ever by number of edits. Not trying to blow my own trumpet, just trying to make it clear that I am very experienced - so please trust me when I say that full name and height issues arise frequently on footballer articles and they are an easy target for lulz vandalism, and as such both are usually explicitly referenced in footballer infoboxes, and have been for many years. See also John Wark which has 'John Wark' referenced as his fullname and is a FA... GiantSnowman 22:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish, were you thinking about the RFC to disallow nationality if it was the same as country of birth? That was conceptually the same - don't unnecessarily repeat info in infobox. The doc for {{infobox person}} does state to use birth_name= "only use if different from name=. This all relates to having infoboxes "summarize key facts". {{infobox football biography}} has all three parameters (name/full_name/birth_name) and it does say to not use birth_name= if it isn't different. It is silent on what to do if name= and full_name= are the same - but GS seems rather adamant (did you see last comment above) that footy bios should repeat the name to limit vandalism. MB 02:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, {{infobox sportsperson}} has all three names and the doc there advises that full_name= is only for when it differs from name= and birth_name=. So this redundant usage of full_name appears to be just a local football thing, not all athletes. MB 14:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds correct to me (including which discussion I was thinking of). Given that {{infobox person}}, {{infobox sportsperson}}, etc., are consistently documented, it appears that the footy one is defying a site-wide consensus, and doing so on a bogus basis (vandalism potential doesn't have anything to do with how WP treats content).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most active WikiProjects having a consensus is not WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Raise if there if you wish. GiantSnowman 18:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Penn Club of New York Historic Landmark

Source used in intro states it's a National Historic Place: https://web.archive.org/web/20110705223037/http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/reports/2429.pdf

@User:MB

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MB&oldid=991011704"