User talk:Renamed user g5s6n3yi8z7g08cs

Archives

No archives yet.

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

CS1 error on Sonya Hussyn

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sonya Hussyn, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I have the brain capacity of a 10 year old and I appreciate your efforts to fix my talk page mistakes. Sending love your way. Dawnbails (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Reverts

Hello. Could you please explain to me why did you revert me on several occassions? I don't know what's the point of this [1]. There are other places called Storozheve so it shouldn't redirect to one of them, logically. I also don't know what the point of this is [2]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

These terms have no ambiguity on English Wikipedia because articles associated with interlanguage links are not extant here. Please refer to WP:DABNOT as well. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

There's more than one notable individual known as Ștefan Holban. Some readers might look for one and some might look for another. The disambiguation page was useful for that purpose and your edits now restrict the entity "Ștefan Holban" to one single individual. Prior to my edits there had been confussion regarding both individuals showing disambiguation and clear separation is necessary. See for example this [3] ("Ștefan Holban" used to be title for the general's article).

I also don't see anything in WP:PRIMARYRED nor in WP:DABNOT related to this. I do see that MOS:DABRED says red links can be included as long as they're linked in other non-disambiguation pages. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The point is you didn't include any linked articles except interlanguage links. For the format of such entities, you may refer to this citation, although there's still no consensus if they are acceptable. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I've understood you. "Ștefan Holban" had two entities, one had a page in English Wikipedia and the other was an interlanguage link. Per that note you've linked it'd appear there is no consensus for removing entities with interlanguage links. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You still missed the point. It means there should always be a linked article which contains the red link no matter if you put an interlanguage link after it. For example:

• (correct) Árbol, Villalba, a parish in Vilalba, Spain Y
• (incorrect) Árbol, Villalba, a parish in Spain N

NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I restored both and added some blue links. Are they appropriate now? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Not really. The linked articles you added don't contains the red link in the entity. And please note that exactly one navigable article should be linked per MOS:DABONE. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but you're not getting your point across effectively. With each time you name a new policy and convention you hadn't mentioned before. I am not experienced in this field of Wikipedia.

I added a link for Holban on the linked article and removed the link to Storozheve in the disamiguation page. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It's OK now. You're free to recreate Novofedorivka (disambiguation) deleted as a G14 candidate before. But please make sure its format correct. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I've also restored a disambiguation page for Novodarivka (Novodarivka (disambiguation)). You might have been right in reverting my move of the town with an existing article as it is substantially more populated than the others from what I've seen. It probably is the primary topic.

Glad we sorted this out. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I have adjusted its format for the primary topic and added a linked article. It's now a WP:ONEOTHER article. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, for both. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Paul Nooncree Hasluck

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Paul Nooncree Hasluck, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Dilan Yeşilgöz-Zegerius

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Dilan Yeşilgöz-Zegerius, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Wildstyle

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I urge you to discuss your objections to this merge at Talk:Graffiti. 162 etc. (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to this merge. However, I revert your edits because you just converted Wildstyle to a MISPLACED redirect without any mention of Wildstyle in Graffiti. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm struggling to find anything at Wildstyle that is supported by references to reliable secondary sources. Can you give me an example of what you think I should be adding to Graffiti? 162 etc. (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

To merge articles, you may follow the guideline on WP:PROMERGE step by step. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in the article is sourced; therefore, it must all be deleted. See WP:PROVEIT. 162 etc. (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Note that WP:PROMERGE asks us not to "just redirect the source page without copying any content if any good content from the source page exists." (emphasis mine.) 162 etc. (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

In that case, you're suggested to obtain such a consensus from a deletion discussion per WP:ATD-R instead. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

AfD has been opened. 162 etc. (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Revert

Hello, Why have you reverted my changes to "Edinburgh Handedness Inventory" on 14th August? Yours, Exodriv Exodriv (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Because you provided material without sourcing and modification linked to non-extant templates and categories. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It is wrong to source the Google Scholar citation count which increases every day. Anyone can look it up. I could give a precise number today if you think that is better than the form of words I chose.

The category "Anatomy" did need modification: hand preference say for writing is behavior and little or nothing to do with the anatomy of the hand. I accept that "Physiology" was just the plausible guess that turns out to be mistaken. Exodriv (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Then I see no justification in adding such material per WP:RS. As to templates and categories, you may ask for a renaming if you do have a good reason. However, the modifications in the articles are not constructive. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

A City of Ballarat article fork?

Hi NmWTfs85lXusaybq,

I'm not an Australian, so I may be mistaken in this, but it looks to me like we have two articles for the same "City of Ballarat" which should probably be merged, unless there might be some Australian logic of the two articles of which I am unaware. The two articles I see for the City of Ballarat (Australia) are, City of Ballarat and simply Ballarat.

I can't see why we need these two articles to be separate, and what exactly distinguishes the content of one article from the other. It seems to me that either the two articles should incorporate a definition of how they legitimately cover two distinct and different subjects in both their article titles, and in their lead paragraphs, or else they should be merged into the City of Ballarat article. What do you think about my observations on this possible "article fork"?

Thanks,

Lighthumormonger (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lighthumormonger,

I find no justification to merge these articles: Ballarat is a city (categorized in Cities in Victoria) and the council seat of the local government area City of Ballarat (categorized in Local government areas of Victoria). You may find more article pairs in such form from Local government areas of Victoria, such as City of Frankston and Frankston, City of Melton and Melton.

Thanks,

NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Three localities in Bastak County, Iran, that are improperly entangled; advice kindly requested

I've been a frequent editor in pages related to administrative changes in Iran, but I've come across three pages I can't easily fix technically now that several things have been done before I had the chance to work on them. Perhaps you can help, or be in a position to pass this to someone who can assist in removing a stumbling block for which I lack the tools.

The event:

After the 2016 National Census, the village of Kukherd merged with the village of Harang and was renamed the city of Kukherdharang.

The correct solution would've been:

1) The Kukherd page would move to Kukherdharang (because renamed); the page would be edited to indicate the city's status as "formerly the village of Kukherd..." etc.; referenced with the proper government document; and edited to conform with its status as a city throughout the entire page.

2) The Harang page would not move; its status would now be as a "former village", and so the page would be edited and referenced to indicate its absorption during the merger.

The issue:

Unfortunately, none of that happened. Those three pages (Harang, Kukherd, and Kukherdharang) are entangled in a way I cannot easily undo.

1) Harang was moved to Kukherdharang, leaving behind a redirect from move. They aren't the same entity; the page shouldn't have been moved or redirected.

2) Kukherd was redirected to Kukherdharang, leaving behind a simple redirect. It should instead have been moved, because the entity itself was renamed.

As it stands now, both Harang and Kukherd redirect to Kukherdharang. After thinking about how this might be undone to result in a page for Harang (with all its history intact) and a page for Kukherdharang (with its history intact from the Kukherd page), I decided that I don't have the rights to be as bold as I might like and possibly break something.

The way to resolve this is:

1) Move Kukherdharang to Harang over the redirect (I'm unable to do that) 2) Edit the Harang page (Can do) 3) The redirect from move can be deleted, since the overall effect is simply to have restored the Harang page (I'm unable to do that) 4) Kukherd should not redirect to Kukherdharang but should be the original Kukherd page that can now moved to Kukherdharang where it belongs

I'm sorry to be long-winded about this issue that may seem trivial, but any advice or help you have would be appreciated. I can do the editing and have everything I need to get these articles back in shape after so much apparent vandalism and unnecessary ref bombing, etc., but they aren't in the right places. I basically need a Harang page and a Kukherd page with their intact histories and talk pages, and I can do the moving and editing from there.

Thanks for your time! Brightkingdom (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I have completed the requested moves as you suggested. You may help to remove spams and update articles. Thanks. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Eswiki block

Hi. Is your eswiki block still affecting your membership of The Wikipedia Library? If so, let me tell you that I disagree with the sysop's resolution, and I think I can try to convince another sysop to unblock you, based on our common sense and ignore all rules policies, as your block is completely unnecessary and it doesn't help to reduce disruption, which is the purpose of the blocking feature, given that you declared that you wouldn't be active in eswiki.--SRuizR 23:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @SRuizR:

My memberships on some global wikimedia projects are still affected by this active block on eswiki. I was accidentally registered account and was reported for my username on trwiki as well. A nice sysop there rejected this report based on my statement (see here). I'm glad that you're willing to help me convince sysops on eswiki.

Thanks,

NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Can you give me some examples of those global projects? I think that specifying some could be important to convince the sysops. Kind regards.--SRuizR 00:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @SRuizR: Besides The Wikipedia Library, IRC hostmask cloak also has the following criteria: User must not be actively blocked from a project. Kind regards. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

LuchoCR has unblocked you. I hope everything goes back to normal. Kind regards.--SRuizR 02:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Everything is fine now. Thanks for all your help and best regards. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Swap between Talk:Solitaire (disambiguation) and Talk:Solitaire

Hi, Jc37,

The common swap of these talk pages was made for consistency with that of their subject pages I have done per RfC consensus. And {{DisambigProject}} should appear on the talk page of the disambiguation page itself (i.e. current Solitaire) rather than its redirect. However, you manually swapped them back without any explanation. I'm not sure how you found it and if there's any misunderstanding here. I'm asking for a formal guide on how to deal with such situation.

Thanks, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries. What you did was fine.

What I was following up on was that one of the talk page's content referring mostly to the dab page (which was now a redirect). And also wanted to make sure that the talk page with the majority of the discussion content wasn't "hidden" at the redirect. So if you look now at each talk page and each facing page, their content now basically matches.

This sometimes happens with talk pages when multiple moves happen. Fortunately this one wasn't too complicated.

Thank you for the note, and I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 03:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

And thank you for pointing out about the template. I've gone ahead and moved that as well. - jc37 03:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

G6 error nominations

Hello. I have declined a few of your G6 nominations because they were not clearly errors. I would suggest that you use redirects for discussion to seek deletion, if you so wish. Some of those redirects, like 2012‌-13 United States network television schedule and 2012‌–13 United States network television schedule, are long-standing redirects that have existed for years. Some were intentionally created (​​Karelia) and some were created by a page move. All have some chance of surviving RfD through WP:RfD#K2 and WP:RfD#K4. As an individual administrator, I should not be short-circuiting such discussion. I would also note that you have been doing moves using your page mover tools for the same purpose. Given that I'm not certain they meet the criteria for redirect suppression, I would advise to wait for some sort of consensus to appear. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: I'm not sure if you actually realized what I did before you declined my G6 nominations. I'm cleaning up erroneous redirects with implausible zero-width characters in their title. For example, you can compare 2012‌-13 United States network television schedule with 2012-13 United States network television schedule to find "%E2%80%8C" in its url-encoded title. I actually have discussed this task with an administrator Espresso Addict before. After my explaination on their talk page, they deleted Hyperbolic ‍secant under G6. Another administrator Extraordinary Writ have deleted Other‍ (philosophy) and Polar ‍bear even before that. If you checked pageviews and incoming links of the nominated redirects, you should have known their unhelpfulness. I hope you can reconsider their deletion. Thanks, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz, Extraordinary Writ, and Uanfala: I'm certainly no an expert on redirects, so if I've made a mistake in deleting Hyperbolic ‍secant out of process I'm (of course) perfectly willing to undelete it. It just doesn't seem to me that redirects using an invisible character (cf Hyperbolic secant) are conceivably useful? Am I missing something? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about whether they should be deleted, but I don't believe that they should be speedily deleted. If redirects are implausible, R3 should be used instead of G6. If R3 cannot be used because they were not recently created, then perhaps there is a reason for that. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. I've restored it. If there are lots of these, then agree with Sdrqaz that a bundled deletion discussion is the way to go. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

NmWTfs85lXusaybq, I did actually realise what you did before I declined your G6 nominations. I had to read your conversation with Espresso Addict because the redirects being tagged with just {{db-error}} and no other explanation did not make it very clear why they had been tagged. A few items that I think that it is important to note: The two redirects deleted by Extraordinary Writ were deleted as G7 because Uanfala, when creating them, described them as "temporary" and asked for their deletion after some time. NmWTfs85lXusaybq, you tagged them as G2 and they were deleted as G7s – validly so – while for the redirects that I declined, they were tagged as uncontroversial deletions. With respect to the speedy deletion policy, I don't view them as comparable.

One of the RfD links that I gave explicitly says that "redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user" (emphasis in original). As for page views, XTools doesn't really seem to work for them, so I'm not sure which tool you are using. When we are talking about implausibility and redirects, we should look at R3, which is specifically about implausible typos. The community has decided that R3 should only be used to delete redirects that were recently created – using G6 to circumvent that restriction, and to circumvent the community having a say, seems wrong. While it is admirable that you have discussed this with Espresso Addict, ultimately consensus should not stem from two people. Given the similar nature of the redirects you want to be deleted, I would suggest a mass/bundled nomination at RfD instead of nominating them one by one. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. These G6 candidates were tagged without any further explanation because I thought it was clear per {{db-error}}'s description. Other‍ (philosophy) and Polar ‍bear weren't tagged as G7 because Uanfala didn't blank them or tag them himself, while he did describe their creation as test. And I didn't start a RfD nomination this time because an admin and the creator had short-circuited one of my RfD nomination, which was started by following due process adviced by another admin, per G6.

No incoming links does give them no chance of surviving RfD through WP:RfD#K4 rather than WP:RfD#K2, while pageviews from XTools doesn't exclude the chance concerning WP:RfD#K2 either. Given that, I fully agree with Espresso Addict to undelete Hyperbolic ‍secant for its controversy and I will start a bundled RfD nomination instead. Best regards, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Kukherdharang

The city of Kukherdharang with the merger of the village of Kukherd and the village of Harang according to the official approval of the government on 25 February 1391 in Bastak County of Hormozgan province.

Harang Wikipedia page should be merged with Kukherdharang It is explained in the background section with an authoritative source Arman.Farsi57 (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed here before with Brightkingdom. Harang was intentionally kept and updated with the mention of status as a "former village" to indicate its absorption during the merger, while Kukherd was moved to Kukherdharang with a redirect left. No more manual modification is needed in these pages. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, NmWTfs85lXusaybq. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. 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. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Vettichira and Shihab Chottur

Hello, NmWTfs85lXusaybq,

I saw that you corrected a bad page move with this article. Thank you. It would be helpful, when doing this, if you could take a moment and leave a comment on the User talk page of the editor who made the mistaken page move or other error. A polite explanation of their mistake can prevent a future error from occurring. It is often more effective to leave a personal message, sharing your knowledge of Wikipedia policy and procedure, rather than just posting a general template. Having a message from another editor, explaining mistakes, is less ambiguous than a template message. Thank you for considering adopting this practice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Liz,

The only reason I didn't leave a warning message on their talk page is that I thought they were a sockpuppet of Skrworld and a spammer (perhaps COI) per edits in Darul Huda Islamic University and Vettichira as well as the similarity of their usernames. I was about to issue a report to SPI or AIV to request CheckUser against them while I couldn't find more explicit evidence after I dug in. I hope this note could help you. Thanks, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it. I hope with editors who are not sockpuppets or spammers, you'll consider leaving a note.

But I was wondering why you draftified Draft:Cil with bar twice. Recently created articles should only be moved to Draft space once. Otherwise, you should seek other solutions like tagging the article indicating its problems or purusing one of our deletion processes. In this case, the page mover has been blocked and is unlikely to complain but multiple draftifications might raise issues with less problematic content creators. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reminder. I was quite aware of WP:DRAFTOBJECT, and I should have summarized the second draftifying as reverts per WP:PMRC#1. The vandal who performed the page moves under misclaim (so is that of The New Order: Last Days of Europe) is not the content creator, but a probable sockpuppet as explained in their block log. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Apartheid disambiguation

The topic wasn’t discussed for eight months. There are hardly any editors on the page. What would constitute a proper discussion on the topic? The use of the term apartheid is more relevant now as the broader definition, not as the narrow definition as implied by the article title. Should the discussion be highlighted somewhere, or will it take place over the period of several years? Catboy69 (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You may follow the guide here to start a discussion for this controversial move. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Just seconding that this move should be listed at WP:RM--it's too big to not be discussed. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

removal of Wikipedia:Workshops/Bhutan 2023

Please dont remove this page. It is for training workshops we are running this week. I'm not sure what it is you dont like about the page, but am happy to discuss if you would like to engage here or on my talk page. However, there are 9 new Bhutanese editors-in-training, with 10 more next week, using this page. Thanks Doctor 17 (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The page after the misnomer fixed is now on Wikipedia:Workshop/Bhutan 2023. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I found it. Was the misnomer that I listed it as an article, not a project? Doctor 17 (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of them. Moreover, the parent path of your page should be Wikipedia:Workshop rather than the non-extant Wikipedia:Workshops. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

thankyou :) Doctor 17 (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Please don't do this again

I understand the reasons behind your mass-RfD nomination, but my experience is that, most of the time, the more entries at a nomination the worse things go. Given that you nominated over three hundred redirects to be evaluated all at the same time, I have closed the discussion per WP:TRAINWRECK (there was rough consensus to do so). Of course, the nomination templates have to be removed, which is why you're seeing ~70 alerts. I'm looking into a bot/rollback option for the rest. In short: I accept your good faith, but, please, don't do this again. It broke XfDCloser. Edward-Woodrow • talk 18:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I may split this nomination into several groups if you like, but I don't see another place to get such a consensus other than RfD. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The venue isn't a problem; the volume is. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The early close is controversial. I split the nomination into groups and reopened the discussion. And don't close it again without further consensus. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Moved a page without an explanation

You moved Virgil Elliott to draft stage without a reason or explanation. Please do not move the page to draft again. If you believe the page should be moved take it to the talk page for discussion. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I just reverted the move which had mistakenly taken the draft to the project space with the summary revert bad move (which is definitely not WP:DRAFTIFY) while don't care if it's eligible for main namespace. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Ksi

How is it vandalism to point the redirect for Ksi to the KSI_(disambiguation) page that includes the psi definition? Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, Rvv didn't refer to your edits. I was reverting vandalism made by 9-11Attack, who is the spammer and probable sockpuppet. They retargeted Ksi and removed the hatnote on Pound per square inch here. As Pound per square inch has been the primary topic of Ksi for more than half a year, please don't retarget it again without further consensus. Ksi (disambiguation) has been created instead. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I have opened the redirect up for discussion[4] since I didn't see any discussion in the archives. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Montrose (CTA) (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montrose station. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2027 elections in India

A tag has been placed on Category:2027 elections in India indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Impressive redirect centralization/cleanup

well done. And thanks for helping me clear my watchlist of articles that pre-dated temporary watching Star Mississippi 12:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't notice your watchlist. I use sql query on Quarry to find out empty talk pages of redirects to be centralized. There are totally more than 18 thousand pages to be processed, while the rate limit on PAWS, about 10 seconds per edit, seems too slow for this task. Thus, I have requested permission for AutoWikiBrowser here to be approved. I hope you could review it. Thanks, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with AWB and not a technically focused editor, so I won't be able to approve it. I'm sure and one of the other technically-minded editors will be around to address the request. I'm definitely grateful, didn't need to be watching talk pages last edited 10-15 years ago! Star Mississippi 13:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. You came here from Truist (disambiguation) and it helps you clear the watchlist when the blanked talk pages are turned into redirects. I didn't realize that because my user page is the ONLY one in my watchlist and I thought you were referring to another list you built on your own. However, I'm afraid that some mistakenly blanked talk pages might be hidden under redirects. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yep, Truist and some older ones. Great clean up tool Good luck with the project! Star Mississippi 01:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to explain G6 grants/declines

I'm usually willing to G6 a poorly-formatted disambiguator if it was an error that was promptly corrected by pagemove (ideally by the person who made the error, but acceptably by an intervening party where the creator didn't object). So that's why I granted a few of your CSDs. However, where a user creates a redirect with a bad disambiguator, and it's not an outright typo or anything, the correct course of action is RfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have noticed that those redirects might be intentionally created by Treetoes023, but I was not sure if they were eligible for R3. Anyway, thanks for your RfD nomination. It's complicated to bundle RfD even with Twinkle. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Please explain

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: Hello, Why have you reverted my edits to Muhammad Ayub Khan? Please explain, Muhamamad Ayub Khan was widely known as 'Ayub Khan', not as 'Muhammad Ayub Khan' though Muhammad Ayub Khan was his full name, but is it necessary to use his full name on his article's title? Another thing is Ayub Khan was mainly notable for his presidency, he served as the President of Pakistan from 1958 to 1969, the main notability is here that he was the President of Pakistan, his army identity comes later, however you must explain me that why have you reverted my edits. You also have reverted my edits in Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. - Hamwal (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you actually know that you should have made a formal request for these controversial page moves since you tried to do so here? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: Muhammad Ayub Khan should be renamed as Ayub Khan (President of Pakistan). I have requested about it in Wikipedia:Requested moves. - Thanks. Hamwal (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think you have followed the guide here to request that move in a proper way. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions, a page transcluded in Wikipedia:Requested moves, is only a place to automatically synchronize list of move requests by RMCD bot after you make such a request at the talk page of the page to be moved, such as Talk:Muhammad Ayub Khan, a good place for your case. And please refrain from removing the {{citation needed}} tags in Muhammad Ayub Khan like this before you provide reliable sources for them. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: I am no more interested in doing these things, if you want to do then you may do. With Regards - Hamwal (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard isn't the proper place to raise questions about this, while Wikipedia:Teahouse is. There's no doubt that I have little interest in requesting this either, as I'm the one who reverted your undiscussed moves. Since you give up doing so, I assume that you have withdrawn all associated moves. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2027 in India

A tag has been placed on Category:2027 in India indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2027 elections in Asia

A tag has been placed on Category:2027 elections in Asia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

U1/G7

Hello, I noticed that you've undone my CSD U1 request for my old user talk page. I was a bit uncertain about whether to use the G7 and U1 criteria in a situation like this, so I sought advice on the NPP Discord channel. Someone there suggested tagging it with these criteria, as it's generally at the discretion of administrators to delete a userpage when requested by the same user, especially when that user account no longer exists or has been renamed.

As things stand, I've noticed that nobody contacts me after being redirected from my old talk page, so I believe it's time to have it deleted. Besides, the SanemAyhan07 account no longer exists, so having a user talk page with this name doesn't serve any purpose. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 10:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

For such a situation, you could have asked for not leaving a redirect when requesting for renaming. Generally, redirects like this are harmless and will be kept as an exception of U2 as you noticed when your nomination is self-reverted. Literally, they are not eligible under either G7 or U1 as explicitly mentioned in these criteria and the alternative way to delete them is RfD. However, it seems that Liz has deleted User:SanemAyhan07 under G7. Therefore, you may still ask her to delete the associated redirect of user talk page for you. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 12:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

IP hopper

Hi there- thank you for your help in dealing with the IP hopper over at Brunette (singer). It appears, however, that the blocked user is using a new IP to reinstate their edits. Any advice on next steps? Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

As for any edits of Dealer07's sock ip from Attiki, Athens, Greece, WP:BRV applies to revert them without any more reasons and without regard to WP:3RR. A wider range block of 2A02:85F:F000:0:0:0:0:0/40 has been issued again although that seems still not enough since this sock has been socking for a long time per Drmies's note. If the disruptive editing persists, protection for pages and blocks for new ip ranges could be requested to refrain from their socking. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Understood! Much appreciated. Archives908 (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Katherine Hill

Hello, why did you revert my Katherine Hill page back to my sandbox? I believe that I have valid resources and I have a neutral tone. Iceskater79 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Because that page was moved into the wrong namespaces and there isn't enough reliable source to warrant its notability. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

what kind of sources should I add? Iceskater79 (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Buffy (given name)

You have twice removed cited information for a name article. Please do not do so again without further discussion on the talk page. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not an article, but a disambiguation page, where references should not be included per WP:DABREF. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

No, that is not a disambiguation page. It is an article about a name that includes a name list and a redirect back to the disambiguation page like hundreds of other name articles on Wikipedia. Take a look at the other articles in the categories. You are deleting an article without discussion which is close to a violation of the three revert rule. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Haven't you copied almost everything from Buffy into that page? Do you have any idea about the difference between an article and a disambiguation page? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Primarily because you removed the article from the disambiguation page, including the definition of the name, the last go around. i transferred it to the Buffy (given name) article with a redirect. This is a name article, with a definition, statistics and information about the history of the name. It is exactly like every other established articles that also provide information about names. Once again, you have reverted cited information in violation of the three revert rule when you knew it was contested and without discussion. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It's YOU who have ruined the disambiguation page Buffy TWICE at Special:Diff/1182586264 and Special:Diff/1182634568 and duplicated part of it in a redirect of incomplete disambiguation. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I wrote a cited article that provided additional information about the name, which I relocated to the exiting Buffy (given name) page after you deleted it from the disambiguation page. A name article includes information about names and a list of one or more oeople with that name. Take a look at the Anthroponomy project page for other examples. This is contested and you have refused to discuss it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What are you contesting? And what's that mean when you say "removed the article from the disambiguation page"? Again, all your edits in Buffy are disruptive and STOP if you don't know what a disambiguation page is. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I am contesting your removal of a referenced name article from the Buffy (given name) page, as I said above. Your removal of a referenced article is contested. I alson suggest you review the criteria for name articles. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Buffy (given name) is a page of partial disambiguation. I don't see any related information you provided that deserves an article. As for the Anthroponomy project page, it performs a disambiguation-like function while the page you overwrited from a redirect mixed the given name with nickname, stage name and even fictional characters which you copied from Buffy. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

An article about a name includes the definition, history, and statistics about usage of a name along with a list of people bearing the name and links to articles about tgem. The format I used is the same format used for other name articles, using established precedents. It is referenced, just like every other article of that type. I object to your removing it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to any cited material in your article. But don't duplicate non-related entries from Buffy and don't link your article into the dab page. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The general guidelines for a name article do include a requirement that a list of people with the name be included in the Name List category. Technically, the people named or nicknamed Buffy and fictional characters with the name all belong there rather than at the Buffy disambiguation page under the established guidelines for a name article. Take a look at other articles in the category to see examples. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

If you really have the confidence that those entries should belong to your article. You may replace all of them in Buffy by the entry of your article like that in Darlene. I will see if there's any objection from the others then. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Under the Surface

If Under the Surface (Marit Larsen album) is the primary topic, shouldn’t it be moved and redirected to Under the Surface? Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your reminder. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Pharmakon

Hello again, NmWTfs... I saw your revert at Pharmakon and if you prefer we can wait for the move to be official. I don't understand the desire to link to German wiktionary in en.wp, when the word is clearly Greek? Is there a rule about using identical spellings in the Latin alphabet rather than identical spellings using the Greek alphabet? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no prejudge on the primary topic of Pharmakon, while what I did is only formatting a dab page with a (disambiguation) qualifier per MOS:DABPRIMARY. As for the wiktionary link, it's the article associated with the same word of English transliteration in English wiktionary as well as links to both a wiktionary article of the ancient greek word and a German wikipedia article, original from here. Thus, I can't see any benefit of your change. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

nope... the English transliteration of the Greek root is wikt:pharmacon (capital letters are used exclusively for German entries). Since you seem to prefer it, we'll wait for all the forms to be filled out for the change of primary topic based on the 100 to 1 dominance in page views plus what any search engine shows when you type "pharmakon". One more week of business promotion won't hurt after so many years this redirect went unnoticed... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's disappointing and confusing that you are completely failing to see my argument while still pretend to discuss here. I'm cleaning up hundreds of dab pages ends with "(disambiguation)" by adding their entry of base name at the top per MOS:DABPRIMARY and have little prejudge on the actual primary topic of any of them. Undermining my motivation won't change anything if you consist on that's a promotion. As for the wiktionary link, it should be simply removed since it's a German transliteration as apposed to an English one. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Moving content of SIG Combibloc Group to SIG Group (?)

Hi!

SIG Group is after Tetra Pak the world's second-biggest maker of drink cartons after Tetra Pak, with an "estimated 15 per cent share last year" Source: https://www.beveragedaily.com/Article/2008/01/16/Salzgitter-to-buy-SIG-Beverages-unit?utm_source=copyright&utm_medium=OnSite&utm_campaign=copyright

They have been called SIG Combibloc Group for a few years after an acquisition, but have renamed themselves back to simply SIG Group at the General Meeting in April 2022: https://www.sig.biz/investors/en/shareholder-information/annual-general-meeting/2022-annual-general-meeting

Semen Indonesia Group is abbreviated "SIG", but not "SIG Group", because their "G" stands for "Group". It is an Indonesian cement company of only national significance.

So, the term SIG Group refers only to SIG Group, the packaging company.

The best way to solve this seems to be to move the whole content of the SIG Combibloc Group article to SIG Group. With a hatnote for Semen Indonesia Group for people who searched the wrong term. And create a Redirect page to SIG Group on SIG Combibloc Group. Any other suggestions? Should the editing history be included in the move of the content? Futurebassbass (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, see WP:BEFOREMOVING. Besides, the requested move could be controversial and you are suggested to start a discussion for this move at Talk:SIG Combibloc Group per WP:RM#CM. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Old Talk:Internalization

Greetings. Thanks for moving the Internalization (disambiguation). Unfortunately, the content of Talk:Internalization was blanked. Could you restore its history, please? Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Apparently, the talk page associated with the original Internalization is in Talk:Internalization (disambiguation) now, together with the subjective page move. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hum, I think the old history will be missed by most editors, as no one watches the recently created Internalization (disambiguation) page. Could you undo the swap, please? The one can simply make a new edit, preserving the long history of Internalization. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The disambiguation page you created has no primary topic and one may find the related page move and the original page from the edit history, but if you must have the original one back, you should copy-paste your content to Internalization (disambiguation) by overwriting the redirect and request the deletion of Internalization per WP:G7. After that, I will move Internalization (disambiguation) back to the base name with its talk page. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Your current batch changes

FYI, your current changes adding {{Talk page of redirect}} are breaking probably hundreds of pages, specifically talk pages which have at least one discussion but don't have headers. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alissa&diff=prev&oldid=1183642250. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that before. There're indeed talk pages start with a section header and have no templates at the top of the pages while still need a {{Talk page of redirect}} to monitor its change of overwriting. I will find a way to fix it. Thanks for your reminder. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

All the errors has been fixed, totally on 123 pages. A newline will be added after the template in case this sort of things happen again. Thanks, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Dan Bloch (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

NmWTfs85lXusaybq, I am going through your edits. "All the errors" have not been fixed. [5] [6]. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

That caused no error at all. Does it have any hurt? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't break the page syntax, but it should have a line break. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "should"? Is there any guideline for this? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no guideline that expressly mandates it, but it is considered good practice for readability in the editing window. I am not going to ask you to fix your previous edits, but please try to leave a line break in the future. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm doing now for the remaining talk pages. Of course I can add line breaks for the others, but you definitely don't want to receive those triggers of watchlist again. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk page of redirect

Hi. I appreciate your effort to add {{Talk page of redirect}} to talk pages of redirects, but please stop doing that. You are unnecessarily triggering people's watchlists for no reason. If the page creator added {{Talk page of redirect}} when the page was created, great; otherwise, that's fine as well. If you happen to come across a talk page of a redirect that doesn't have {{Talk page of redirect}}, feel free to add it on sight. But these mass edits aren't helpful. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about the watchlists. I add that template as an alternative approach from Category:Pages with incorrectly transcluded templates to help find hijacking in thousands of extant redirects that have been frequently converted to article. This task will be completed soon and I think that won't cause much trouble. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm relieved to hear that this is almost over. I count at least 30 edits from you today on my watchlist, and more on previous days. Please refrain from performing systematic mass-edits in the future. The addition of these templates aren't essential. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It depends. Sometimes I have to remove wikilinks of transliteration in about 10,000 disambiguation pages to figure out more WP:G14 candidates. When I convert about 20,000 empty talk pages to redirects, I unexpectedly received many thanks for clearing watchlists. After this task finished, only a handful of talk pages of redirect will be added with this template when they triggered the threshold. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Saikū disambiguity page

Hi NmWTfs85lXusaybq. I am very confused as to why you are removing any reference to "Saigū" from this disambiguity page. If you review all of the discussion on the Saiō talk page, you'll see that Saikū was never the focus of disambiguity, it was Saigū and how it could refer to either Saikū or Saiō. Numerous sources were provided. The conclusion was that Saigū should be a disambiguity page that pointed to both Saikū and Saiō. Somehow, and I don't know how, Saikū became a disambiguity page and Saigū has completely disappeared. All of this discussion began because a particular user wanted to change the Saiō article to Saigū. If, at the end of the day, Saigū isn't even mentioned, then why have we made these changes at all? PLEASE look at the discussions on the Saiō page. The whole point of the disambiguity was to define Saigū. With it being completely absent, there's no longer any point to this disambiguity page at all. As it stands, we've just made wikipedia more confusing and less accurate with these changes. It felt like the discussion came to a logical conclusion, and then the implementation was just random madness. Ka-ru (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)