User talk:BU Rob13/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Contents

NFL Top 100

Would you be interested in automating removal of NFL Top 100 from infoboxes of players per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#NFL_Top_100_Rankings_in_Player_Infoboxes? I suppose AWB might be able to do it, but I'm too lazy to brush up on regular expressions. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Dirtlawyer1 has been coming up with a list of all the general cleanup needed within this infobox, with the goal of doing it all at once. I was going to automate the cleanup once a list was finalized. Would this be a good candidate to add on to that? Also, could an example of an article where the Top 100 is listed be provided? Thanks. ~ RobTalk 01:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
This is more of a content issue than formatting and moving stuff around, so it's up to you if you want to combine it. Not sure if the Top 100 zealots would revert or not. Can look at Darrelle Revis for an example of how it's listed in an infobox. I took care of the top-10 or so from 2015 and all the prominent QBs before giving up.—Bagumba (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Could we identify all articles with the "Top 100" cruft? If so, we could use a bot to remove the cruft on a regular basis. After the the fourth or fifth pass in two months, most of the crufters would surrender. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
That would work, yes. Edit-warring with a bot is indeed unproductive, and it seems there's consensus to remove these. The easiest way to get a list is to go through all articles that link to any of the Top 100 lists and then search within templates only to remove the lines with those links. Easy to do with AWB. I have a bit of a backlog on tasks needing to have BRFAs submitted, so you can take a ticket and I'll call your number shortly. The task is three deep. ~ RobTalk 02:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, on second thought, I'll just handle this with normal AWB when I'm back home on Tuesday. If they get reverted we can deal with the edits against consensus then. These lists are mostly only in a small number of player articles when you consider duplicates (~200?), and there's no sense in clogging up BRFA for a task like that. I'll just do it semi-auto. ~ RobTalk 02:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Josh Aladenoye

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Hasdot

You requested its deletion per {{db-xfd}} but you didn't close the discussion. Can you close the discussion please? BethNaught (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  • @BethNaught: Done. Sorry about that, don't know what happened. I know I wrote up the close, maybe I forgot to hit save. ~ RobTalk 18:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Thank you, BethNaught (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Record setter

Nearly 15k edits in 3 months - is that a record? Alakzi (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it. Many are semi-automated, so it's not too surprising. I don't really pay much attention to my stats.~ RobTalk 23:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Did you revert your latest comment on my talk page accidentally - or? Alakzi (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: Nope, purposefully. I realized I was being stupid. Just following the AALERTS page fulfills the same function and requires the same amount of effort as opting into a bot. Sometimes the obvious solution flies right past me. ~ RobTalk 19:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Alakzi (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Persondata notices

Hey, Rob, I'm trying to get editors to transfer usable information from Persondata to Wikidata, not just delete it. I think Jweiss is already aware of Persondata's deprecation [1], and notice of Persondata is a good idea, but we really need to be telling people to transfer any usable information not leave them with the false impression that all of it has already been transferred. College and professional sports often have some the best developed Persondata, complete with full birth names, etc., and I would like to actively encourage as much transfer as possible. People like Jweiss and other sports editors were among the most diligent in completing the templates, and their participation in manually transferring a significant portion of remaining usable, untransferred information is key in those subject areas. Please keep this in mind. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: You're welcome to recruit editors to assist with the transfer, but my immediate goal with that message was to cease the editing of the template. The argument of the "immediately deprecate and remove" crowd is that we're wasting resources updating these templates due to failure to properly communicate the deprecation to all editors. In order to defeat that argument, education about the deprecation is highly important. Frankly, I'm not knowledgeable enough about Wikidata to be able to advocate for transfer since I can't explain how to transfer data, so I can't do much more than that. You're welcome to communicate about the transfer with that editor. This is not a systemic message I'm sending out; I just noticed the edit on my watchlist. ~ RobTalk 23:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Articles using Template:Infobox college coach with deprecated parameters

There's still about 0 articles left to convert that the bot's choked on, if you'd like to help. Alakzi (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I may get around to it eventually, but I recently finished with cleaning up after my own bot's run, so I need a break from the manual conversion. It sucks. ~ RobTalk 23:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi and BU Rob13: Yes, manual template clean-up work does suck. Sort of like being told that accurate, usable and untransferred information from Persondata cannot be transferred to Wikidata by an automated process, and then doing it manually for 1000+ articles -- but I digress. Back on point, I just tried to manually correct the bot's rejected auto-fix of Template:Infobox college coach for Goof Bowyer (see [2]), but it is not entirely clear from the updated template instructions how the teams and year-spans should be entered for a person who was a coach for two or more different sports (in this case, football and basketball). I did what I could, but used hidden text to preserve the teams and year-spans for the coaching tenures. I would grateful if one you two rocket surgeons could show me how that is supposed to be done for Bowyer, and I will follow the approved coding pattern in the future. Thanks, guys. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: That particular infobox wasn't converted by the bot, and the only thing that needed fixing was to rename "admin_years" to "admin_years1" and "admin_teams" to "admin_team1". The task is to number admin/coach/player parameters by splitting them at <br>s. As an example, see Special:Diff/681068119, which the bot failed to convert because one of the <br>s had a space after the forward slash; or [3], which had no |player_years= parameter. Alakzi (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey man didn't you like my edit?

Hey man didn't you like my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.142.159.116 (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Walter Youngs death

I don't know how to edit Wikipedia pages but I saw that you were the last person to edit Walter Youngs (baseball player) page. I am a good friend of Walter's and I wanted to let someone know that he died yesterday, September 19th, of a massive heart attack. There has been no news coverage of this at all so I have no references other than my friendship with him. I have been saddened by the lack of coverage of his death so I figured I would reach out to someone on Wikipedia to at least make sure his page reflected his death out of respect for my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.173.157 (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry for your loss. Wikipedia is not a primary source for information. Instead, we just cover information that other reliable sources, such as newspapers, have already covered. See WP:RS for more detail. If you'd like this information included in the wiki, I'd recommend that the family runs an obituary in a newspaper that places articles online (most local papers do at this point), and then place a note on the article's talk page linking to that obituary for another editor to look it over and include the information as necessary. ~ RobTalk 05:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo

Hey Rob, I can't use several others in the edit about death of rappers on this page. Do you want me to list each rapper with sources from newspapers she spoke out on? Is that really necessary? Pls reply.

Something indicating that would you're claiming is true would be required, yes. ~ RobTalk 18:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of countries by real GDP growth rate

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of countries by real GDP growth rate. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Calculating the odds.

My name is Michael Corley. I'm not a Wiki editor, but I am a huge baseball fan. Over this past weekend, a buddy and I took a trip around northcentral West Virginia and visited the graves of three deceased ball players. After returning home I looked up the players on Wikipedia and noticed that you had edited every players profile within hours of the graveside visits. I'm trying to calculate the odds of that happening and wondering what connection you have to these guys. The players were Lee King, Pop Shriver and Jake Hewitt. Michael Corley70.32.217.110 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michael. I'm guessing you came here via the talk page of my bot, BU RoBOT, which redirects here. I recently completed a bot run using that account to convert the infoboxes of all MLB players from {{Infobox MLB player}} (which is now a redirect) to {{Infobox baseball biography}} per a TfD discussion which resulted in a merge outcome. This bot run was quite large. It took around 48 hours and edited well over 15,000 baseball articles, so it isn't too surprising that three of the players you visited were among those. ~ RobTalk 06:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Alex Carroll

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing Template:Ballet as per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL

I noticed that the bot is removing the Template:Ballet where the article is in fact linked in the template with the subject line 'Removing Template:Ballet as per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL; general fixes' - this seems to contradict WP:BIDIRECTIONAL -- Paul foord (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Paul foord: That's quite odd; I manually removed each link from the list of articles to remove the template from, but it appears I missed one or two. Possibly duplicate entries? Either way, I've rolled back the couple of edits that shouldn't have occurred. ~ RobTalk 11:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Paul foord (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There has been a lot of contentious discussion on what WP:BIDIRECTIONAL means. You are treading on delicate grounds using a Bot to edit in accordance with BIDIRECTIONAL.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @TonyTheTiger: Thanks for the feedback. I responded to a request by WP:Bot requests to correct this situation. Following that request, I posted a thread at the relevant WikiProject's talk page, WT:BALLET, asking if there was any objection to the task. I received one response supporting the removal and no opposition whatsoever. The task went through the appropriate bot approval process at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 3. No editors objected to this task at any of these discussions, and the BAG member who reviewed my BRFA saw no issues with the consensus gathered to perform this task. If a consensus subsequently develops that the task should not have been carried out, I'll happily mass rollback the edits completed as part of this task. I do not know anything about the history of contention with WP:BIDIRECTIONAL you described, but it appears clear that the letter and spirit of the policy does not allow a navbox to be placed on every page related to a WikiProject without regard to which ones are linked. There are certainly border cases such as table of content navboxes that link to other more detailed navboxes, which in turn link to articles, as I've seen once or twice in the sciences. I don't believe this is one of them. I don't currently have any plans for a future bot run related to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, but would you like to be informed if I ever do consider taking on such a task? I'd be happy to drop you a message with a link to the discussion if you would like to be involved in it. ~ RobTalk 14:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • (talk page stalker) @TonyTheTiger: As the aforementioned BAG member, I would also like to hear more on this. While there was no opposition to the task during the ~two week BRFA period, other than discussion about which articles to exclude from the removals, I realize most opposition to bots comes after approval :). Given the vast majority of these transclusions were on pages related to specific works or composers, a general ballet navbox being used seems inappropriate and against convention; it's not a portal link. Thanks. — Earwig talk 00:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • If you have a lot of free time you can read the controversy here. You might want to post on that talk page before taking on such a task.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I re-read/skimmed over that thread after having done so during the BRFA process, and I don't see any arguments that change my mind. The focus seems to be on different cases of transclusion than what the bot is delinking here, but I welcome clarification in case I am missing some aspect of the discussion. — Earwig talk 19:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Are you claiming that you read the archives for that talk page during the BRFA process?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
        • The controversy over WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is the other way around - whether links should be removed from navboxes if it isn't suitable to transclude the navbox on the linked article, not removing navboxes from excluded pages. WP:BIDIRECTIONAL as it stands isn't controversial, this is the controversial addition. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I admit I don't remember the exact timeline, but I'm fairly sure I did. It was definitely before you linked it, but it may have been after approval when I was checking it over; the discussion is the first result when I search for "bidirectional" in the WT namespace. I skimmed it to see whether there were any arguments that would go against the bot's behavior, but I did not read it fully. — Earwig talk 00:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • We had an RFC for a similar situation at Template talk:Aviation lists#RfC: Should this navbox be removed from non-mentioned articles?. Same application here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The user Achayan makes you a puppet everytime asking you to take back his fancies.

Dear The User Achayam does vandalism in many pages. In the page Abraham of Angamaly he alway makes you a puppet to take back his favourite version without bibiography especially of a session namely St. Hormizd church built by Mar Abraham. It is simply to distort history according to his fancy. He does not like the true historians who tell the truth. He wants to keep the partial information without bibiography. I request you to be beware of his malicious intentions.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwillmakeyoufree (talkcontribs) 10:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Devin Wilson

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your advice. I will remain cool.

Sorry for the sharp words that used in the edition of Abraham of Angamaly. I will avoid using the personal references to the previous editors.Truthwillmakeyoufree (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox basketball club

Hey. Can you take a look at what's going on here? I normally don't get involved in the pro team infoboxes, but this guy IM-yb showed up at the talk page for WikiProject Basketball ranting about team colors violating WP:COLOUR. I did a little snooping through his user contributions and it seems he is in a slow-rolling edit war over the color coding for this template. Can you tell what they're trying to do here? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: It appears they're going on a misguided crusade against all colors in templates, pretty much. I've responded in two places and reverted in one. Hopefully they won't edit war over this. ~ RobTalk 01:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm no coding wizard, but that's what it looked like to my uneducated eye. Hopefully, he will listen to reason -- and re-read the WP:COLOUR guideline. Given that it's part of WP:ACCESS, I think he missed the point, but then again so have others who are a lot more experienced than him. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Script for converting endashes from HTML to wikimarkup

BU Rob13, would it be possible to create a script that would be applied to a group of articles and replace all instances of HTML coding for endashes (&ndash;) with the wikimarkup for endashes (–)? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: FYI, AWB is already set up to do this. I converted a bunch of the Gators articles a few weeks back using AWB. Beware, however: you are supposed to only convert such non-visibly rendered changes when you are performing other visible edits. I piggybacked the ndash conversion on the delinking of Gainesville and a bunch of other similar maintenance tasks. I would be happy to talk you through AWB's basics, if you're not already familiar with it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I've done this sort of conversion manually many times by pasting the text from the edit window into MS Word, doing a find/replace, and then pasting back into the edit window and saving. But I was hoping for a solution more automated than even what you've mentioned with AWB, perhaps a bot that would hit a group of articles, say all of the coaching succession navboxes, and do this sort of conversion. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Using the MS Word search-and-replace function only makes sense when you have a large number of identical replacements in a single article. I found AWB to be really efficient for doing replacements across a large number of articles in short work. I replaced all of the ndashes and mdashes, delinked a bunch of low-value links, and performed a bunch of other maintenance tasks on 700+ articles in under an hour. That's pretty tough to beat for mass replacements. Ping me by email; we can talk further. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not possible to automate this as a task unto itself as per WP:COSMETICBOT. If there's clear consensus for this task and it isn't already incorporated into the AWB genfixes, you'll want to talk to Magioladitis about incorporating this. The way genfixes work is that the general fix edits are completed on any article that an editor or bot edits with the general fixes enabled. So essentially, this lets you piggyback the endash edits onto any semi-automated or automated edit that uses AWB with genfixes to kind of "crowd source" this fix. ~ RobTalk 04:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Help - Self-Promotion and COI Attack by Competitor

Help is needed. This is Model Mugging regarding evidence of self-promotion and COI regarding attack on us by competitor.

There has been no reply to the talk on Model Mugging. This editing game Wikipedia has does not seem to have any standard rules, especially for libel-slanderous behavior. The last edits to the Model Mugging editing war are wrong.

In a prior edit, Peter Rehse wrote “Wikipedia is not here to advertise any entity but to provide information” – I ask whether rumors is providing information because it falls into Wiki’s tabloid journalism definition. The author of that article says she is writing about rumors.

Why are Wikipedia editors insisting on a source that the author admits to being rumors and from another lying Wikipedia editor?

I am hopeful, because upon reviewing the history of the Model Mugging page, Wikipedia editors saw what Impact was doing in 2005 as self-promotion and personal advertisement. Model Mugging was unaware what Impact was doing at that time.

It is my hope you are simply unaware of what Impact is up to again in 2015.

Do you see a problem with Impact self-advertisement? I put a picture summary report together with a small amount of historical background – please click to view summary report: http://modelmugging.org/history/impact-self-defense-wikipedia-attack.pdf

I have identified tag teaming efforts of Nefariousski in latest Impact Self-Defense attack against us. She is loaded with hypocritical contradictions such as COI, biographies of living persons (BLP), lack of editing balance, failure of editing in a NPOV, disregard to consensus for disputes, using an unreliable source to make libel-slanderous statements. And she is involved in a campaign to promote a competitor, Impact Self-Defense.

The Impact group has repeated misquoted a training incident that occurred 30 years ago that made it into a tabloid magazine written by Peri in Mother Jones. The American Press Association Principles of Journalism identifies "journalism‘s first obligation is to the truth, and also discipline of verification. . ." as listed on the APA website. The Peri article violates the APA’s principles. The source also falls into Wikipedia tabloid journalism definition and sensationalism.

Nefariousski and other writers insist on using the term ‘sexual assault’, which is not used in the article. Even after Nefariousski was corrected by FreeRangeFrog about her inappropriateness of using the term “sexual assault”, she insisted on using it. Additional editors have also changed the current line to be even more inaccurate. However, ‘rumor’ is used numerous times. Peri writes, “The staff of Women Defending Ourselves had finally begun to feel empowered, but it was a passive sort of empowerment, based on whispers and rumor campaigns instead of direct confrontation.” A 25 plus year old rumor campaign is exactly what Nefariousski, as Impact, is doing!

How is this single source claiming rumors thereby reliable? Mother Jones was not a major publication in 1990, especially when publishing admitted rumors and is loaded with misinformation?

Nefariousski-Impact tag team planned to link the Wikipedia ESD page to a derogatory Model Mugging Wikipedia page highlighting a tabloid source written with accusation heading, “controversy”. Impact also wrote a promotional page and pasted it into her Sandbox. They are also getting around Wikipedia rules against self-promotion using Wikipedia search engine ranking by keeping their page in the sandbox status - FIRST PAGE on search results for "Empowerment Self-Defense".

PLEASE CLICK the pdf link as evidence to view images in summary report of her COI campaign promoting Impact Self-Defense - again: http://modelmugging.org/history/impact-self-defense-wikipedia-attack.pdf

Is this "nefarious" behavior? Should she be blocked and all her edits scrutinized? Does Wikipedia see a problem with hypocritical editor(s)?

I had written a response in Model Mugging Talk PRIOR to discovering the ESD page.

We need the Model Mugging site corrected and will also need protection against other Impact organizational associates tag teaming inaccurate edits.

Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiipedia-posting (talkcontribs) 03:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wikiipedia-posting: I'm happy to take a look, but I will not look at the behavior of other editors. If you have an issue with someone's behavior, take it to WP:ANI. If you have an issue with content that's on the page, please quote me the exact piece of content and tell me why it shouldn't be there or should be changed with reliable sources to back that up. ~ RobTalk 04:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@BU Rob13:Thank you for your reply.

I understand your “editor’s” position, and thank you for assessing this situation. I see you have visited the page – Thank You!

I thought I saved this earlier to your page, but guess I did not. Sorry.

Per your request for a description of the edited sentences: “Female instructors stated that women were traumatized by the course or sexually assaulted by Model Mugging male instructors. These accusations led to multiple female instructors breaking from the group to form their own self-defense organizations.”

The way it is written suggests the admitted rumors are facts, and therefore posting accusations-allegations are a form of tabloidism and questions the reliability of the source. Nowhere in the article is the term “sexual assault” used. That is a horrible accusation to make without foundation that was then enlarged toward other instructors.

The second line is also inaccurate. There is a lot more to the politics in the history.

I am raising the question of eliminating both sentences. However, deleting those two sentences leaves the “History” section appearing promotion oriented. So I am OK with removing the entire “History” section completely. Due to the insistent reposting of the rumor source, my original edit was to show a more balanced position with regard to both the ratio of publicity, and a more accurate historical content. But part of it along with the references were deleted. Deletion of the whole history section would bring us in a complete circle of where we started before June, 2015. However, Nefariousski doesn’t want to let it go and changed again today, even though there is a NPOV-COI in his sandbox page. Also in reference to Talk page regarding the last entry, there was only woman - Carlson. Sacco described feelings, and only Peri met Thomas for the interview. The whole article is in question, what is real and what is fabrication or omission of facts.

What I wrote on Sept 8th was deleted to include the battery and organizational breakup along with sources. One comment was that it was too positive – none of that is positive.

Is there a value to listing any of this 30 year old historical material? Does it really matter if people broke away from the organization?

Instead, what is most notable about Model Mugging is the revolutionary training concepts, which in various forms are the most copied and applauded methods of training. There was a true brilliance behind Thomas' development of martial science, even more than his development of the padded assailant. Ultimately, that was fundamental issue behind the organizational splintering, because people experienced how brilliant it was and wanted to take the concepts he created – ugliness of politics.

It is the teaching methodologies that has truly helped so many people. So wouldn't a training approach be more worthwhile content to Wikipedia than what started this whole thing back in June?

FYI, I did reply to Nefariousski on my talk page (not that I ever wanted a talk page).

There are also comments on Cullen’s page.

Thank you very much for your consideration and any guidance!

@Wikiipedia-posting: Based on the article, it is clear that "sexual assault" is supported. One of the allegations is that a male instructor grabbed a female student's breast. That's clear sexual assault. As for stating as facts, that's simply untrue. The terms such as "stated", "accusation", etc make it clear that these have not been proven in a court of law. I don't see any reason to change the sentences. As for why they should be included, we're an encyclopedia. We include historical information by definition. Given that this was published in a major magazine, it's noteworthy. ~ RobTalk 04:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point about an encyclopedia, but should it also be noteworthy to include other relevantly related information? The “rumor campaigns” by the WDO organization is stated in the same article (p.66 far right column center of page). The author mentions rumors multiple times in the article. Also, clarification that the article describes only one woman made accusations and the other woman described how she felt, but states she was not touched inappropriately (also page 66 upper left corner). There is also no foundation for accusations about other male instructors, in the upper right hand corner of page 66 describes another rumor mentioning male instructors; so I do not know why accusations against male instructor were expanded into current edit.

I re-wrote that whole sentence below including the Peri source, but also balancing other relevant information. I also re-listed two deleted sources from my Sept 8 edit in the edit history. The first source is about the group’s beliefs that relates to the accusations and the rumors (Sept 8 edit source #21 - last paragraph), and the second selected as BLP balanced interview about Thomas (Sept 8 edit source #24). Sorry that I am not good with the source insertion for a talk page so I listed locations inside the re-write. Thank you very much for your assistance!

Rewrite – “In mid-late 1980's accusations against Model Mugging founder Matt Thomas for sexual assault on a female instructor in training led to a group of female instructors forming their own self-defense organization and conduct rumor campaigns about Thomas and the program (source Peri article). The group believed that men should not teach women self-defense (Sept 8 edit source #21 last paragraph). Stanford men filed a complaint in 1993 against the Feminist Studies Department sponsoring the SWOPSI program that resulted in the cancellation of the program under Title IX (no change - current source). Model Mugging encourages women to take risks and gain success from the empowerment coming from within themselves (Sept 8 edit source #24 - BLP balance).” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiipedia-posting (talkcontribs) 19:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Establishments

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Establishments. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Tracking category for new Persondata

Hiya, Rob. Can you create a tracking category for all newly added instances of the Persondata template from and including June 1, 2015? Alternatively, or all articles created from and including June 1, 2015 which include a Persondata template. Should render nearly identical results. Don't need both, just whichever is easier to code. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Never mind. It looks like you're taking time for academic reasons this week. Take care of business, and let's talk when you have time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: I'm not really the best person to ask about this. This sounds more like a one-time run bot operating in the userspace to create a list than it does a tracking category. Maybe Avicennasis could help? he has helped me with a task somewhat similar to this sort of thing in the past. ~ RobTalk 21:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Rob. Edgars2007 picked up on my request on Frietjes' talk page and has created some form of working lists by article and editor, which I'm reviewing now. It's a start. When are you back in the saddle? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: Honestly? Probably January. I'm rushing out my honors thesis by mid-November (originally planned to be done mid-March) to send to grad schools. Also, I need to apply to grad schools throughout November and early December, which will take a good while. I'm applying to an absurd number to maximize chances of getting into a good one. Crossing my fingers for Harvard/Chicago/Princeton/Berkeley/etc. Then finals in late December. ~ RobTalk 05:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/5 millionth article logo. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for your edits to CFL articles. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gary Cooper

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gary Cooper. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Economic history

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Economic history. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest...

...that you consider adding WP:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts to your watchlist? EEng (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Users_EEng_and_Ricky81682 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EEng (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

Think this got archived before u saw it [4]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @WikiOriginal-9: Thank you for your nice message! I did see it first time around and meant to thank you then as well, but I lost track of things a bit. I hope to get back in the swing of things soon after my graduate applications are submitted. Hopefully, CFL bios haven't gone too neglected in my absence. I'm sure that's not the case, given how many times you cleaned up after me when I created articles. :) ~ RobTalk 05:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Portal talk:Current events/2015 November 17

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Portal talk:Current events/2015 November 17. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

WP?

Actually I don't get it properly How to use it? Seikh Sahana saleh (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jude Wanniski

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jude Wanniski. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Royal Households of the United Kingdom

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Royal Households of the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:ExxonMobil

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ExxonMobil. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Rob

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ RobTalk 02:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, BU Rob13!

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Please comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Corbin Sharun

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Corbin Sharun you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ikhtiar H -- Ikhtiar H (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Ikhtiar H. While this has been pending for GA, the 2015 CFL season has ended. Tomorrow or Sunday, I'll take a brief look at the article to add relevant 2015 information. Please hold off on finalizing your review until you see edits there with 2015 content. Thank you! ~ RobTalk 11:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
That's great! I will get more time go through the article then! Ikhtiar H (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ikhtiar H: Should be all set now. When I dug into it, it turned out Sharun didn't do all that much last season, so it was easy going. I'll be at Disney World (yay!) from the 11th to the 16th, so if you could provide a little leeway in turnaround time on responding to issues, I'd appreciate it. I'll address things as soon as I can when I get back if the review goes up in the interim. Thanks again. ~ RobTalk 02:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Message without a header

Dwayne Philip O'Steen died on Sept 16, 2001. His memorial service was 9/21/01

Your GA nomination of Corbin Sharun

The article Corbin Sharun you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Corbin Sharun for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ikhtiar H -- Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Corbin Sharun

The article Corbin Sharun you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Corbin Sharun for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ikhtiar H -- Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI and SPI

Re your NAC of WP:ANI#Repeated reverts by Aubmn socks, I chose ANI because the problem was immediate and SPI is (at least in my experience over recent years) often slower, because Bbb23 had recently checked for sleepers, and for other reasons. The editor is working under the illusion that only one or two editors find fault with hir, so s/he can pursue a vendetta against them. NebY (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@NebY: If there's immediate problems that constitute vandalism, my recommendation would be to report at WP:AIV or WP:AN3 (in addition to at SPI, if necessary, to check for sleepers). I certainly don't fault you for going to ANI, but it's almost never the best location for a socking issue. AIV and AN3 are faster, while SPI is more comprehensive, depending on whether the situation needs speed and/or a CU check. Leaving a note on the talk page of Bbb23 may be faster still if he's online and already familiar with the situation. ~ RobTalk 23:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you don't fault me for going to ANI; your NAC seemed to. It was a fast-moving account-hopping vandalism issue which had a history, didn't qualify for AN3, had started to touch on many articles and the work of several editors, and may well affect them again. Bbb23 and Acroterion were seemingly offline. Please, if you're going to make an NAC, don't just AGF; rather, assume an editor may be aware of more history than you know and familiar with as many options as you are. NebY (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@NebY: It was merely my personal recommendation on getting the issue handled as comprehensively as possible. In the future, I'll make a recommendation in the comments and not in the close itself, but I do stand by my recommendation that SPI (or AIV/AN3, given the time sensitive nature) would have been better venues. At the end of the day, though, you reported something that needed action and action was taken. That's the important part. ~ RobTalk 00:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Calvin McCarty

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Calvin McCarty you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of EricEnfermero -- EricEnfermero (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@EricEnfermero: I need to update the article with 2015 information, since I originally created this article and nominated it quite a while ago. That should be done by tomorrow night. ~ RobTalk 22:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
No problem! There is no rush. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Russell Copeland comment

This is Russell Copeland. It has been brought to my attention that on my Wikipedia information there is reference to a DUI in 2013. I personally do not see the relevance or importance... It was quickly taken care of and I would like for that negative information be removed.

Thanks, Russell Copeland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD18:4AD0:24BE:2342:3D09:C2A5 (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The information is sourced, so there is no reason to remove it that I can see. While we have strict policies against negative unsourced information on biographies of living people, properly sourced negative information is a part of any encyclopedia. If you'd like to request an editor to take a look at the page, you may wish to check out WP:COI for information on the preferred methods for people with conflicts of interest to request a set of eyes on the page. ~ RobTalk 21:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hiya

Are you back? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Kinda. I'm definitely doing some work on articles I nominated WAAAAY back when I was active to get them through GA. I'll be around for other things sporadically. What's up? ~ RobTalk 23:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Got a little template coding project. We need to create a new uniform stats table for each of the major football positions, so we can get rid of the infobox stats tables and the random wikitables of all shapes and sizes and personal eccentricities. One standard table that displays the individual stats most relevant to each player position. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: Happy to help, but I don't know that I'm competent enough to handle that sort of thing all on my own. You're looking for like one offensive template, one defensive template, and one kicker/punter template or literally for every position? Separating out all the positions is just inviting a merge consensus that's painful later on. ~ RobTalk 00:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I would propose to use the same template for all positions, but with toggled options that only display for QB, RB, WR/TE, OL/DL, LB/DB, and P/PK. I think that would cover it. For example, we don't need to display passing stats for linemen, or kicking stats for receivers, but the template would use the same basic design and graphics for all positions. Only the individual stats would change. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: Could you discuss with the relevant wikiproject and find an article which has a stats box that is the "ideal" we want to turn into a template? Also, a list of all stats worthwhile for each position would be good. Remember we'll need a toggle for special teams as well (KR/PT and special teams tackles). ~ RobTalk 01:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
There was already a brief thread at WP:NFL that included Dissident93; he's already working on compiling a list of specific stats applicable to particular types of positions. I'll touch base with him today. More than anything, it needs to be uniform and compact, so that the surrounding text wraps around it, and it not does incorporate large amounts of waste white space that make the table overly large and distort the surrounding layout elements. The trick is using stats labels/column headers that are only two or three-character bolded abbreviations, so that the columns are compact and relatively uniform in width. The table should incorporate a small text key at its bottom that defines the two and three-character abbreviations, and we can include a scroll-over reveal function for the ones used as the column headers. I'll see if I can find a good example or two of a tightly designed stats table; most of the existing ones in NFL and CFB articles are overly large custom wikitables that look amateurish. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Calvin McCarty

The article Calvin McCarty you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Calvin McCarty for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of EricEnfermero -- EricEnfermero (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FunHomePlaybill.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FunHomePlaybill.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

amendment to page on eighth amendment to the Irish Constitution.

Thanks, I appreciate your commentary on my edits. It is important to note that the amendment makes no reference to abortion. So it is not neutral to describe it as a ban on abortion. The amendment refers to acknowledging the right to life of the unborn. I will try to edit the entry again to reflect this. Thank you. 149.157.96.7 (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Declan

As reliable sources identify it as a ban on abortion, that is the appropriate succinct language to use in the lead. The text of the amendment itself is available in the body of the article. It's clear the text of the amendment is non-neutral on the issue of abortion (as any abortion ban would be), so presenting that text as fact in the lead (i.e. stating that there exists a fundamental right to life of the unborn which is merely being acknowledged) is non-neutral. I encourage you to use the talk page to discuss any changes you'd like to make to the lead, since the article's talk page is better suited for this over the user talk pages. ~ RobTalk 17:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

why was my suggestion bad???

please answer me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoke weed man (talkcontribs) 18:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeb

Please explain how my edit was unconstructive. --YebBlush (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Rob, I am new to editing Wikipedia and hope any mistakes I made were easily fixable. I appreciate your assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djoslyn (talkcontribs) 20:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, still learning as I said. Last message was from Djoslyn (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Munro Leaf

If you can find more reliable sources than the US federal censuses, you let me know. The point is that Munro Leaf was a multi-talented man. You deleted the information about him playing lacrosse withiut even reading the yearbook that was cited. You deleted information about him being a treasurer without ever reading any of his books that deal with this topic for children! You deleted information about his trip to Europe in 1929 without any understanding of its relevance to his concern about the French nation in World War II. I hope you left alone the dead links that I fixed on the page.68.32.154.213 (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you making the changes back. I have read the WP source file but do not know how to get the citations exactly in format so I try to copycat the way I see other citations on wikipedia. I have decided to make a scratch page on my computer to keep templates and examples of the citation styles I am adding, and to try to learn more about how to cite wiki-style.68.32.154.213 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

isaack

I want to know how , can I make the history of my life in wikipedia I.R.Hadid (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't

Mgmbmbmhmjbjhj (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

First Fleet

Please read my comment here —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Editing

I'm just uploading picture. That's not at all a vandalism. If I change the entire information which is not true that's the vandalism. Shreyas Kanna (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. ~ RobTalk 22:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

GA status

Hi there! It's been a really long time since we last spoke, so I'm really glad to give you an update after all this time! I just came to let you know that Dilek Peninsula-Büyük Menderes Delta National Park, that article you reviewed for DYK in what seems like ages ago, is now a good article! The ambition for trying to get it to that status is something I have to owe you for, since you stated that possibility. I'm so grateful for that, I really thank you for your support. In the meantime, if you'd like, you can also take a look at Özdere and see if there's anything you can do for it, such as improve, offer advice for, or review even, since I'm about to nominate it for GA! Again, thank you so much. Cheers! Coderenius () 02:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Garry Williams (gridiron football)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Garry Williams (gridiron football) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Garry Williams (gridiron football)

The article Garry Williams (gridiron football) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Garry Williams (gridiron football) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

List of state leaders in the 5th century

The way I am merging lists, I have already done a lot on the 5th century (and some on the 6th, etc.) even as I am not quite done with the 4th century. Would you mind not doing the 5th-- but skipping to the at least the 7th, either that or going back to doing the 1st BC? If not maybe I can at least export to the 5th what I already have for the 5th before you do anymore on it. tahc chat 01:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tahc: I actually finished the 5th already. I'll skip ahead to 10th century or so. ~ RobTalk 01:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Template

After userfication, what happens to where it has been used? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I checked if there were any transclusions prior to moving it, and there didn't appear to be any. Have you been typing {{subst:blahblahtemplatename}} when placing it on pages? If so, nothing will change on the talk pages. ~ RobTalk 18:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
No, I haven't, it's a red link now, nobody can follow the discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Whoops, I thought you were either transcluding or substituting, not just linking it. I recreated the redirect. My apologies. ~ RobTalk 15:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Routemap problems

Hi, there appears to be problems with this edit. The lower part of the map is not showing correctly, around Sutton Lock. Also the map is wider than the original map, please can this be reduced to previous size and moved to left of page. Many thanks. Keith D (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Keith D: The size/alignment cannot be changed as far as I'm aware; the template is a bit different than its distant predecessor. I'll look into that a bit moe. It can be made collapsed by default to take up less space, and it can be moved on the page of course. I think the idea of the template is to appear similar to an image. As for the bottom, it's showing correctly for me. Could you take a screenshot and show me what isn't right? ~ RobTalk 14:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@Keith D: the length of the template is caused by the long title. If you reduce that (which probably should have been done anyway) it will get substantially smaller. ~ RobTalk 14:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Something must have happened as it is now displaying correctly when I go to do screenshot, some of the blue lines were missing when I initially looked at it.
I certainly think that something needs to be done on the width of the rendered map as it is far wider than the existing map and we should not deprecate existing until the replacement can do all that the previous version does. Keith D (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@Keith D: The lines were probably a client-side issue. I've been using my sandbox to verify everything looks identical for the map when I've been replacing these. This template is marginally larger than the previous one because it utilizes a bit of white space on either side of the map images. Most editors agree that this is aesthetically pleasing (rather than having text nearly touching the image). The big "offender" on this particular instance was the huge title, which is not intended. I've broken it into three lines and removed some unnecessary bit of text from the title and it's now substantially smaller. Are you ok with its current size? ~ RobTalk 15:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Much better with the 3 lines. I think the problem is that there appears to be some padding applied in the template itself to the heading so you end up with rather a lot of space to left/right of title that could be removed. I was looking at the |style= parameter but the documentation is useless as it does not give any details of what this can be used for apart from what can be gleaned from the examples. Keith D (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the padding is hard-coded because generally editors think it's desirable. I know I personally hate templates with no padding. ~ RobTalk 15:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@Keith D: Looked into the parameters some more. You can use float = left or float = none to either have it float on the left or keep it from floating like an image at all, if you prefer. ~ RobTalk 15:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:User talk before you block

The redirect isn't needed to keep the links to historical discussions: in this case, that's the purpose of the deletion log and the move log. Leaving this redirect in place could confuse editors into thinking that the userfied template is a community-accepted and used template. Steel1943 (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  • The confusion caused by the link being red is likely much more significant than the confusion from the redirect being in place. ~ RobTalk 15:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
    • The trouble caused by the redirect you created, in my opinion, is greater than any need to retain historical discussion connections, which as I stated above, I think the rationale behind creating this redirect to retain the connections is flawed. So, with that being said since I don't think we are going to come to an agreement on this on your talk page, will you WP:G7 this redirect or do I need to nominate it at WP:RFD (since at this point, it seems that WP:G4 will not apply and is now controversial)? Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
      • I've nominated it as per WP:G7, but I may revisit it. @Gerda Arendt: You may want to take a look at this. Do you think the move log is sufficient to preserve the links? ~ RobTalk 15:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Thank you, BU Rob13. I appreciate this. If something else comes up regarding this title as a redirect, I'll be happy to discuss. (I've been a semi-active participant at WP:RFD for a few years, so I know a bit about "good vs. bad" redirects.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
          • I don't care, just wanted to know. In an ideal world, the content of the template isn't needed. I created the content for one admin who blocked an established editor without a warning, and created the template when it happened a second time (different admin, different victim). I asked three candidates for adminship what they think about it, to help my decision. Wouldn't like to touch those closed discussions, but possibly nobody will care about those old things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
            • @Gerda Arendt: They would still be able to find the link to the moved content in the deletion log if they click the red link, which says "Moved to X" with a link. It's not ideal, but the reality is that very few (if any) editors will look back at the discussions from ages ago, so I don't think it's too big of a deal. If they really need the information for some reason, it's available if they look hard enough. *shrug* Probably best we're getting. If an RfD is filed, I would expect it to be successful. People at RfD tend to dislike redirects that go across namespaces, especially if their target is in the userspace. ~ RobTalk 18:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't mess with the user space of other people

The changes you made to User:Pldx1/Bs-map/North East railway line/src weren't welcome. I have reverted them. By the way, this was NOT a minor change. Pldx1 (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pldx1: {{Railway line header (center)}} was slated for deletion after a TfD. As part of the procedure for implementing that close, all transclusions must be removed from all namespaces, including the userspace, archived talk pages, etc. This is one of the very few circumstances in which editing other's userspaces is not only allowed but actively required by established procedures. While you may have reverted my change, it will have broken the content at that page, since the template no longer exists. Let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers. ~ RobTalk 12:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@Pldx1: I can confirm what Rob says. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: This is not a fair description of what you have tried to do. You were not simply replacing the template {{Railway line header (center)}} by {{Railway line header}} + centering. You were not even replacing {{Railway line header}} by some parameter inside a {{BS-map}} header. You were using this occasion to pursue a campaign of forced replacing of full size {{BS-map}} listings by {{routemap}} listings. Don't pretend there is a consensus to do that. Pldx1 (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@Pldx1: To launch a campaign, I would need an agenda, and I have zero interest in this subject area. Assume good faith. The only campaign I've embarked on is to clear the backlog at WP:TFD/H. Given that the documentation for {{Railway line header}} specifically says to consider using a more recent and sophisticated template, I did so assuming it was the norm. If you prefer a different replacement, you're welcome to do so until such a time that {{Railway line header}} is deprecated (which appears likely). If this is an area of unusual contention, that's a bit silly, but I certainly wasn't aware of it. ~ RobTalk 15:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For clearing out - and this is a scientific measurement - a metric shitton of the holding cell backlog. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: Heh, thanks. After I left, Alakzi did as well (or is it "the-editor-who-must-not-be-named" now?) and it appears the backlog has just sat there in the meantime. A lot of it is actually pretty easy to work through, with many already being wrappers. Let's see how long it takes for me to piss off the fine folks at WP:BRFA with excessive bot requests to substitute those wrappers. What's your opinion on submitting a general BRFA to allow me to substitute wrappers as supported by TfD discussions without needing approval for each and every one? Someone did that a long time ago, but I'm not sure I count as trusted and established enough for that yet. ~ RobTalk 07:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
As a side note, if you ever have some free time, there are a handful of old discussions at WP:TFD that could use some attention. I've been trying to stay out of most discussions so I can close them, but those that I feel particularly strongly about have just been sitting there. Not to mention a couple of the more contentious ones that I'm not supposed to close. ~ RobTalk 09:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
LOL. Yep, the backlog has been moldering unattended for ages, and Primefac is the biggest reason there aren't unclosed discussions still sitting there from October. I confess I've barely looked at the backlog there lately. I'm pretty busy this week but I'll try to take a look. As for the bot thing, I have no idea - I don't see why you couldn't do that, and it seems like it'd be a lot easier, but I don't really keep up with what the BAG people are up to. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd second the barnstar if I were into such things. Would you take it as a compliment if I just said that I've been stumbling over your work repeatedly and roll on June 7. Regards, Bazj (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@Bazj: I had thought about that, but I wasn't quite sure if I qualified. I haven't made significant edits to template-protected templates and have no real intention to. I mostly just make small ones or need to remove TfD notices, etc. I suppose there's no harm in requesting it. I have no inclination to go out of my way to overhaul a major template just to get a user right, but the worst they can do is say no. ~ RobTalk 19:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Eh, the guidelines are just that; the main question is competence. (But then, any admin can edit protected templates and most of us are totally incompetent at it... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Worcestershire Lines - Marked for deletion

Thank you for bringing this page to my attention. Since I created it a couple of years ago, after a couple of failed attempts at trying to add it to existing pages (mainly due to lack of knowledge), I had forgotten I had made this route map. I would be grateful if this page could be retained, especially if I could be guided in the correct direction for adding it to a page. I am also willing to bulk out the page into a more substantial text. Class172 (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia languages/test1 and Template:Wikipedia languages/test2

Nomenclature notwithstanding, these pages were created for demonstration purposes (not "to test editing or other Wikipedia functions") and are linked in an archived discussion. What benefit would their deletion provide? —David Levy 20:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@David Levy: First, I've removed the CSD tags while we discuss. There's a few reasons I don't think these templates should be kept in the template namespace unless you intend to use them in the future.
  • One of the database reports creates a list of unused templates. This report is often gone through by editors seeking to reduce redundancy in templates (the subject of WP:Avoid template creep). When you keep these sorts of templates around even though they aren't being used for anything, the report gets harder to use and people waste time looking at a template like this. This is how I found the templates, by the way.
  • Many bots run in the template namespace, and allowing templates that aren't useful and aren't being used to proliferate increases the number of routine maintenance edits such bots have to make over time. Bots aren't able to distinguish between pages that aren't worth the upkeep and pages that are.
  • The template namespace is nearly as public as the mainspace. It's archived on search engines, etc. For the namespaces that are "outward-facing", I generally consider it best to keep them "clean" as an end unto itself.
My preferred solution would be to delete these entirely. We could substitute them in that archived discussion if you want them preserved there. If you prefer to keep them around in some form, I wouldn't object to moving them to your userspace then deleting the redirect, listing the location of the template in the deletion reason on the incredibly off chance that someone goes through the archives from over half a decade ago and wants to see the test. That would at least tick the boxes for most of my concerns (the database report and the public nature of the template namespace). ~ RobTalk 22:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the detailed explanation. I have no objections to the userspace idea (and I seriously doubt that David Göthberg would mind, even if he were active). I'll perform the moves with redirect creation disabled, delete the newly broken redirects that currently exist, and update the archived discussions' links (which is standard procedure, I believe). —David Levy 06:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. I did the same with Template:Wikipedia's sister projects/test1 (also linked in the aforementioned discussion). Thanks again. —David Levy 06:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. Face-smile.svg ~ RobTalk 10:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ray Narvaez, Jr. listed at Redirects for discussion

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ray Narvaez, Jr.. Since you had some involvement with the Ray Narvaez, Jr. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GamerPro64 14:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

List of state leaders in the 10th century

Did I somehow discourage you from working on the List of state leaders in the 10th century as you said you were going to? I put data there you might use, but you don't have to. tahc chat 01:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tahc: No, I just haven't gotten around to working on that more. I'm more-or-less the only editor actively closing discussions at WP:TFD and working through the backlog at WP:TFD/H. I'm also one of a few working through the backlog at WP:Bot requests. Those tasks have been keeping me fairly busy. ~ RobTalk 01:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

TfD Procedure

Hey, you mentioned I should send you a message if I had any questions, so I thought I'd take you up on your offer...

If I close a discussion, and the result is deletion, is there anything I need to do above and beyond putting on the closure template and stating the result? Is there some kind of automated process to take care of the deletion (i.e. add it to a log of stuff to be deleted)? Or will I need to do something else on my end to put the page in the admin deletion backlog? Could you give me an outline of how the process works? --Gimubrc (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gimubrc: Sorry for the delayed response; I've been visiting the University of Minnesota's Department of Economics over the past few days. Thanks for looking into closing these! I recommend reading through WP:TFD/AI, which tells you the steps you should take when you close a discussion at TfD. There are additional steps that need to be taken to delete the template. In particular, all templates that are to be deleted should either be listed at WP:TFD/H in an appropriate category or be nominated for speedy deletion criteria G6. The latter is only appropriate if no transclusions of the template remain. After you've read TFD/AI, let me know if you have any other questions. I'm happy to help! ~ RobTalk 13:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

"In order to"

I didn't want to quote Fowler at too great length, but he gives another reason for using the longer form - the presence of another "to + infinitive" in the sentence. Now I look at it again, that applies. I still feel "in order to" was better, but as I said there, not worth edit-warring about, and the message has clearly been received and understood.

I bristle rather at "archaic", but I am all too aware that the language has changed in my lifetime, I was once on a TESL course where they showed us the phonetic alphabet. I asked, what's the symbol for "WH"? That one, said the instructor. No, that's "W" as in "witch" - where is "WH" as in "which"? It's the same sound, he said. We argued about it, and I went and researched it in the school's library and found that the distinction between W and WH used to be present, but in my lifetime has disappeared from "RP" (southern English educated speech), and is now classed as a regional variation for Scotland and Northern England. Sometimes I feel old. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That's very interesting! As a New Yorker, I can confirm that "witch" and "which" are identical in our dialect. I mostly dislike "in order to" due to wasted space. I'm studying to be an economist, so I view "in order to" as being two words closer to being too long for publication in a scholarly journal. Your chances of publication in a good econ journal decrease exponentially as your page count increases. Different worlds, I suppose. I was more offended by the unnecessary comma than the "in order to", but I figured since I was editing, I might as well take the lot. You're welcome to reword it if you prefer it a different way. It was more tounge-in-cheek than anything. ~ RobTalk 23:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ANRFC transclusion

Please reconsider your close of Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ANRFC transclusion. I do not see a consensus to remove transclusion of WP:ANRFC from WP:AN.

Here were the two positions:

  1. Against continued transclusion: Xaosflux, MSGJ, Izno, Kusma, Mendaliv, Only in death does duty end, Bishonen, Kharkiv07, Scott, and Cryptic (10 editors)
  2. For continued transclusion: Salvidrim!, Samwalton9, Ricky81682, IJBall, Cunard, JzG, Hobit, and Alanscottwalker (8 editors)

In addition, in the middle of the discussion, Xaosflux reduced the table of contents transclusion to three headers. Before, the WP:ANRFC headers took up much space in WP:AN's table of contents. After, the WP:ANRFC headers took up much less space.

And as Izno, an editor who was against continued transclusion, wrote: "I actually think keeping the toc limit to 3 mostly fixes the issues both of transclusion and sometimes lengthy sections further down the page. Not the page-size problem but the rest at least (findability most notably)."

The WP:AN table of contents' getting cluttered by WP:ANRFC's headers was a primary argument for removing transclusion. Now that the TOC issue has been resolved, the rationale for removing WP:AN from WP:ANRFC is significantly weakened.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cunard: Thanks for your message. In my review of the thread, I didn't get the sense that the ToC was the major issue here. It appeared the driving force behind the remove votes were the large amount of space on the page that were taken up by the dozens of requests at ANRFC. Izno's comment, for instance, specifically addresses the page-size problem. Most "remove" supporters considered the ToC solution better than the transclusion, but it was frequently discussed as a temporary solution pending the result of the discussion. Around half of the "remove" supporters didn't discuss the ToC issue at all with many specifically addressing the page size resulting from having a noticeboard within a noticeboard.
Meanwhile, many of the "keep" supporters favored smaller versions of the transclusion rather than an outright keep. For instance, Salvidrim wanted it collapsed, and other editors expressed at least some support for that idea. Multiple editors discussed pruning ANRFC so the page size is small enough to remain transcluded. Both of these rationales accept the page-size problem as a legitimate issue. Collapsing didn't receive enough support to be considered as a solution, and closing enough discussions that ANRFC's transclusion is smaller is a nice theoretical idea, but it's not feasible to implement in the short-term. Given the weight they placed on page-size issues, I determined there was consensus that there was clear consensus against the status quo.
As for a way forward, I'm guessing you'll find wide support for some type of widget/template to be placed at the top of AN to display the state of ANRFC with links to contribute. I suggested such a thing in the closure because it combines many aspects of the alternatives suggested (collapsing, less page-size, etc). No one solution achieved enough support in the previous discussion to be immediately implemented, but I'd recommend continuing the discussion and gaining support for such a widget or other smaller notification about the state of ANRFC. ~ RobTalk 06:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Meanwhile, many of the "keep" supporters favored smaller versions of the transclusion rather than an outright keep. – other than Salvidrim, the only shortening of the page "keep" editors supported was removing the long list of CfDs listed on the page. This was done, so their concerns have been resolved. Other than Salvidrim, none of the "keep" supporters favored smaller versions of the transclusion.

Where in the discussion do you see "many of the 'keep' supporters favored smaller versions of the transclusion rather than an outright keep"? I see only Salvidrim! (talk · contribs) who I am doubtful would support removing transclusion after his fake headers suggestion was implemented through an equivalent action that reduced the table of contents size. Pinging Salvidrim! (talk · contribs) to clarify.

There were seven "keep transclusion" (none of whom expressed support for smaller versions of the transclusion except for removing the individual CfD listings which was done), one "keep transclusion" from Salvidrim! whose proposal was implemented through an equivalent action, and 10 "remove transclusion". This is not a consensus to remove transclusion.

Cunard (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion was a compromise with the explicit endgoal of KEEPING THE TRANSCLUSION in some form (be it fakeheaders, collapsed or otherwise condensed such as by replacing individual CFD listings with a single link to the backlog). If the time spent on complaining about the size was instead spent clearing items off of the backlog, everybody would no doubt be much happier about the state of things.  · Salvidrim! ·  06:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
First, you missed Opabinia regalis on the remove side in the list above. You also didn't count wbm1058, who questioned your actions in spamming ANRFC. His contribution to the discussion indicated he was concerned with the page-size issue, and I weighed him on the "remove" side somewhat. That brings the count to 12-8, but the count is not how consensus is assessed. The arguments of the "remove" side were stronger, simply put. The major argument of the "keep" !voters (this is the only way closes are happening) was successfully refuted by the "remove" !voters, who claimed people are unlikely to stop and read the list rather than just scroll right past it. There was also no real counter-argument to the "remove" rationale that the page-size is unreasonably increased by the transclusion, which makes it harder for actual AN issues to be handled. IJBall specifically stated ANRFC has a problem of over-spammers, and his comment did not specifically note CfD. He appeared to be pointing at the over-spamming of RfCs, etc. at ANRFC, similar to wbm1058. The "compromise" option that seemed likely to have consensus was the use of some alternative, which I noted in the close. I'd recommend opening a discussion directed at which alternative is appropriate, which I hoped would happen after my close. It was clear that editors were not going to discuss specific alternative options when the remove transclusion vs. keep transclusion issue was not yet settled. Alternatively, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is always an option if you believe my closure was improper. ~ RobTalk 13:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
First, you missed Opabinia regalis on the remove side in the list above. – Opabinia regalis wrote: "I'm indifferent between "remove entirely" and "remove specific listings and just use it as a general backlog log". I interpret this as referring to the CfD list on the page. She was indifferent between removing the CfD listings entirely or removing specific CfD listings and just using it as a general backlog log. She did not say anything about the transclusion. It is an error to assume she did. Pinging Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs) to clarify.

You also didn't count wbm1058, who questioned your actions in spamming ANRFC. His contribution to the discussion indicated he was concerned with the page-size issue, and I weighed him on the "remove" side somewhat. – wbm1058 said: "Cunard has some two-dozen items currently listed on WP:ANRFC. I'm wondering why so many. I just looked at one, which was stale, and didn't seem particularly urgent. When you spam a list with too much "important" stuff, the effect is to make none of it important. Unimportant to-do items get put on back burners." This is not a comment on whether to keep or remove the transclusion. It is an error to assume he did. That an editor thinks I put too many items in WP:ANRFC is a completely separate issue from transclusion. Pinging wbm1058 (talk · contribs) to clarify.

The major argument of the "keep" !voters (this is the only way closes are happening) was successfully refuted by the "remove" !voters, who claimed people are unlikely to stop and read the list rather than just scroll right past it. – the "keep" editors were not "successfully refuted". JzG said, "As an admin, I like having the transclusion. It reminds me to go and pick a few off every now and then." Alanscottwalker said, "It's what gets me to close, any, ever." Some editors will read the list. Some editors will not read the list. In a subjective situation like this, to choose the side you personally feel is stronger than the other is an error.

There was also no real counter-argument to the "remove" rationale that the page-size is unreasonably increased by the transclusion, which makes it harder for actual AN issues to be handled. – "remove" editors did not explain why a transcluded WP:ANRFC with shortened headers makes it harder for other WP:AN issues to be addressed. And regarding "actual AN issues", WP:ANRFC issues are actual WP:AN issues. As noted here, close requests were listed at WP:AN before being moved to WP:ANRFC, which had a more permissive archiving system and kept close requests together. In a subjective situation like this, to choose the side you personally feel is stronger than the other is an error.

IJBall specifically stated ANRFC has a problem of over-spammers, and his comment did not specifically note CfD. He appeared to be pointing at the over-spamming of RfCs, etc. at ANRFC, similar to wbm1058. – IJBall wrote: "To be clear, I do not think ANRFC should be removed from WP:AN." It is clear that he and I disagree with the listings I place on WP:ANRFC. It is an error to use IJBall and my disagreement as supportive of removing WP:ANRFC from WP:AN when IJBall unambiguously says he wants it to remain. Pinging IJBall (talk · contribs) to clarify.

The "compromise" option that seemed likely to have consensus was the use of some alternative, which I noted in the close. – the compromise opinion was reducing the table of contents size. Other than Salvidrim!, there was no support among the "keep" side for anything else.

Here is a summary of the errors in this close:

  1. Salvidrim!'s comments were incorrectly used to support removing transclusion. He supports an end goal of continued transclusion.
  2. Opabinia regalis did not express an opinion in the RfC about transclusion. She discussed backlogs listings in general and CfD backlog listings in particular.
  3. wbm1058 did not express an opinion in the RfC about transclusion.
  4. Whether editors are likely or "unlikely to stop and read the list rather than just scroll right past it" is a subjective opinion. As a neutral closer, it is incorrect to choose the side you personally feel is stronger than the other.
  5. Whether a transcluded WP:ANRFC makes "actual" WP:AN issues harder to address is a subjective opinion. As a neutral closer, it is incorrect to choose the side you personally feel is stronger than the other.
  6. Whether WP:ANRFC issues are "actual" WP:AN issues is a subjective opinion. As a neutral closer, it is incorrect to choose the side you personally feel is stronger than the other.
  7. IJBall's preference to have fewer listing on WP:ANRFC should not be interpreted as lending any support to the removal of WP:ANRFC from WP:AN when he clearly states otherwise.

That brings the count to 12-8, but the count is not how consensus is assessed. – the count is incorrect because two editors expressed no opinion about transclusion. And the count is how consensus is assessed on subjective matters where there is no overriding policy.

The first main error in the close is assuming one side is stronger on subjective issues where reasonable editors can disagree. The second main error is incorrectly interpreting the opinions of four editors as "being on the 'remove' side somewhat".

Based on these errors, I ask you to revise your close to "no consensus" or reverse your close.

Cunard (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Going down the "list of errors":

  1. Salvidrim wasn't weighed as a support against transclusion. He was weighed as an editor concerned with the page-size. Page-size is distinct from TOC-size, by the way. They're two different issues.
  2. Opabinia regalis' comment is fairly clear to me that she favors either removal of any reference to ANRFC entirely or the removal of the transclusion and replacement with a notice about the general state of the backlog. She specifically states the second option she was indifferent toward as including "remove specific listings". The transclusion is nothing but specific listings. If Opabinia regalis let me know that I incorrectly interpreted her stance, I would reconsider my close.
  3. wbm also addressed the page-size issue. He wasn't weighed as a "remove transclusion". He was weighed as a "page size can be an issue", which weighs more heavily toward the remove side than the keep side. When assessing consensus, this is why you can't use a count. Wbm clearly is not weighed as much as someone who steadfastly believes the transclusion should be removed, but he generally seemed concerned with page size (the remove rationale) and said nothing about the issue of people not closing discussions in the absence of the transclusion (the keep rationale). As a result, it's natural to weigh him as a small push toward removal because it speaks toward how convincing the arguments for removal and keeping are.
  4. Please see point 3. I'm not assessing based on my subjective opinion on strength of argument. I'm assessing based on how convincing the keep rationales were to other editors.
  5. Again, see point 3. This is a misunderstanding of my close if you've gotten the impression that I merely assessed how I personally feel about the strength of argument. I did not take that into consideration when closing (and I have no intention of providing my opinion on that).
  6. I made no claim about this in my close. It's clear from the discussion that the page-size argument exists because editors felt that the transclusion was crowding out other discussion. I wasn't subjectively assessing my opinion on that; I was assessing how convincing that argument was to other editors in the discussion.
  7. Similar to wbm, IJBall expressed concern over the page size. He was important in considering how convincing the arguments were, since he was somewhat convinced by the "remove" side that page size was an issue. I didn't weigh him toward the remove side, but I also didn't count him as a full keep vote. Again, this highlights the problem in just using counts. They aren't an appropriate way to assess consensus as per WP:CON and WP:CLOSE.

I would reconsider my close if I misinterpreted Opabinia regalis. The other issues here are misunderstandings of how I assessed consensus or claims that I should be abiding by "1 person, 1 vote", which is not in line with policy. As mentioned above, you're certainly welcome to ask for a review of the closure at WP:AN if you believe I haven't properly assessed the consensus. I don't believe I've made an error here, but I also recognize that I'm hardly infallible. ~ RobTalk 18:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cunard: I misread this in my mentions and thought I was being summoned to a dramaboard. Whew! ;)
To be honest I had mostly forgotten about this discussion, so I hope I'm not the deciding factor - but my comments earlier in that thread about the MEGO effect describe my main concern. The "general backlog log" I had in mind is close to what Rob suggested in the closing statement of creating a new template with a summary of the state of the backlog, perhaps highlighting the most urgent cases. The problem with the transclusion as it stands/stood is that you get used to it as just a big clot of stuff you scroll past without reading if you want to look at something on AN. A more compact presentation is probably a net gain in visibility, since a) people don't condition themselves to ignore it, and b) you can make a reasonable argument to put it in other visible places. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: Come on, my talk page isn't that bad! Cunard Opabinia's response is in-line with how I considered their position when assessing consensus, so I don't see a reason to reconsider the close on that basis. The only part that I didn't consider in assessing consensus is the additional bit about potential increased visibility on other pages, since that wasn't clearly stated in the discussion. I'm curious how it would have been received, but it would have helped the removal if anything, so no reason to reopen so the new argument can be made. ~ RobTalk 18:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Although I still disagree with the position that there was consensus in the discussion to remove transclusion, I like Opabinia regalis's and BU Rob13's suggestion. The primary reason for transcluding WP:ANRFC on WP:AN is the increased visibility, a point that was made by JzG, Hobit, Alanscottwalker, and me, so I am surprised that you did not consider that part.

Here is a compromise suggestion that I consider superior to removing transclusion or keeping the entire WP:ANRFC transclusion. Instead of transcluding the entire WP:ANRFC onto WP:AN, we just transclude the "Requests for closure" header and the "Requests for comment", "Backlogs", "XfD", "Administrative", and "Requested moves" subheaders. Within those headers, we include links to their sections within WP:ANRFC.

This way, WP:ANRFC will continue to have high visibility on WP:AN, but it won't take up that much space:

Requests for closure

Requests for comment

Click here to see all the requests for comment.

Backlogs

Click here to see all the backlogs.

XfD

Click here to see all the XfDs.

Administrative

Click here to see all the administrative requests.

Requested moves

Click here to see all the requested moves.


What do you think about this approach? Cunard (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I've modified WP:ANRFC to look like this. This is what it will look like. Cunard (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Cunard: That would absolutely be supported by my close, yes. Basically, my close was that there was consensus against including the full transclusion, but consensus for including something, especially if that something is fairly compact but encourages editors to close discussions. There wasn't consensus for any specific alternative to the full transclusion, mostly because they weren't talked about enough. As an editor (i.e. not part of the close), I would even argue that your proposed compact version doesn't go far enough – information on how many discussions are awaiting closure in each section and how old the oldest discussion in each section has been open seems appropriate and doesn't compromise brevity. Just a couple of more lines under each heading would be enough to convey how urgently closers are needed. ~ RobTalk 20:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
As a side note, I did consider visibility at AN. I meant I hadn't considered Opabinia regalis' suggestion that a more compact template could encourage visibility in places other than AN by making it feasible to transclude the template elsewhere. That was my bad on communication. I was on my way out the door when I jotted that response. ~ RobTalk 20:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. Cunard (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I have restored WP:ANRFC transclusion after my changes. I agree with adding more information such as how many discussions are waiting closure and how old the oldest discussion in each section is. But that information will fall out-of-date quickly if not updated. Cunard (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd recommend trying WP:Bot requests. That is textbook botwork that many competent bot operators would be happy to help with. ~ RobTalk 20:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I've opened a bot request. Cunard (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think this is a good idea. If you encapsulate the listing in a template and include information about the number of listings/oldest listings, it could be regularly updated by a bot, and potentially transcluded elsewhere as well - e.g. some admins have "admin backlog" subpages to keep track of what needs work.
On looking again, I don't think I actually mentioned the "visibility outside of AN" point in the RfC, so it's not surprising Rob didn't see it ;) But I don't think it's new; I guess maybe there were earlier, informal discussions of the same issue that I might have posted in. In any event, I think this is good progress toward a more useful version. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Opabinia regalis for the feedback! I opened a bot request to do that. :) Cunard (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I added a note on how the bot request might be carried out at the request. ~ RobTalk 20:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out at peer review!

Feedback Responder Barnstar.png The Peer Review Barnstar
Thanks for your invaluable contribution to Wikipedia peer review by automating the closure of old reviews again. You've made a big difference and we all appreciate it! --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@LT910001: Thanks! ~ RobTalk 13:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Endless Summer tracks

Any idea why this template was deleted despite your closing statement? Was it accidentally tagged for deletion? Izkala (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I have zero idea, but I'm guessing someone read delete all and messed up. It's somewhat understandable. I should have said "keep X and Y and delete all others" or something to be more clear. Anyway, I've asked the admin about it. ~ RobTalk 13:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Izkala (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Restored now; simple mistake. ~ RobTalk 13:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Beach volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament

A tag has been placed on Beach volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Beach volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament

A tag has been placed on Beach volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Tagging

Hi. Just to make clear. I did not complete the task wile you had the BFRA. I "only" fixed 4,000 out of 20,000 pages which had problems that your bot could not fix with the current code. And it's not your fault but the fact that the WPBS banner was renamed. I hope this BRFA helped in you being more ready to take over a similar task in the future. Wikiproject tagging is often requested. Best, Magioladitis (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

[[

File:Cucciolo gatto Bibo.jpg|left|150px]]

With my appreciation to your work on Wikipedia

Magioladitis (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steve Ackroyd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Safety (gridiron football). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

You 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/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Time Person of the Year

I urge you to reconsider your recent closure of the RfC at the Talk page of the Time Person of the Year article, for the following reasons:

  • That RfC had started as an attempt to reach consensus on the proper country-identification of Queen Elizabeth (i.e., "U.K." vs. "U.K. plus other named countries" vs. "Commonwealth"). Eliminating all country identification for all of the persons listed in the article was just one of six options listed in the header of the RfC. All of the other options listed there called for keeping the country column, but differed with respect to how Queen Elizabeth should be identified and as to whether flag icons should be included. Although the "remove the column" did receive significantly more support than any other single option, it did not do so with respect to all of the other options combined. Thus, there was no clear consensus for removing the column.
  • Your finding that the "remove the column" supporters offered the best policy-based arguments is simply incorrect. The two guidelines that you cited in your close — WP:ICONDECORATION and MOS:FLAG — each address the use of flag icons. Neither of them speaks to the propriety of identifying a person's nationality in words.
  • The Featured List articles that identify the Nobel Prize laureates all have columns that identify the nationalities of the laureates, even for the science-based awards such as physics and chemistry. Other Featured List articles typically include "nationality" columns if (as is the case here) the recipients are chosen from an international pool of candidates. Thus, your closure failed to take into account the larger community-wide consensus that already exists for these types of articles.
  • The RfC that you closed had already been closed, at which point a new RfC had been opened on the same page. This new RfC addresses only the question of whether the country column should be kept (i.e., there is no conflation with the question of how Queen Elizabeth should be identified). Your closure should have been limited in scope only to the treatment of Queen Elizabeth. To extend the closure as you did effectively renders the second RfC moot and, as such, disenfranchises anyone (such as myself) who participated in the second RfC, but not the first.

For these reasons, I urge you to reconsider your closure. Thank you for your attention to this matter. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the second RfC had been withdrawn by the time you did your closing. Accordingly, I've stricken my fourth point above. Nonetheless, I continue to believe that the original RfC was malformed due to its conflation of three separate questions (i.e., Queen Elizabeth, flags, country columns) and that the entire history of the debate (including the points raised in the withdrawn RfC) showed no consensus for removing the column. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary: In order:
  • This is approximately how I weighted each person's position with respect to Option 5, and the numerical majority is clear:
    • Support: GoodDay, Killuminator, Moxy, Cordless Larry, CMD, Peacemaker67, Alsee, Aircorn, Mojoworker, trackratte, Kaldari (11)
    • Neutral: Miesianiacal, OpenFuture, SMcCandlish (3)
    • Oppose: Alexander's Hood, Reywas92, 1305cj (3)
  • This is perhaps an argument that could have been made at the RfC, but it was not. No one in the RfC refuted the issues with the guidelines. If I missed someone making that argument, please point me in the direction of my mistake and I would reconsider my close. My role as closer is not to evaluate my subjective opinion on quality of arguments, but rather to evaluate how convincing the arguments were to those involved in the discussion. I'm sure we can both agree it's problematic for a closer to close based on their own subjective opinion.
  • Actually, this isn't true of the general articles. See List of Nobel laureates, for instance. There are other lists that specifically address country, but those serve a different purpose, such as List of Nobel laureates by country.
  • I had written something about this, but you struck this point, so no need.
I'm happy to reconsider if I've made some mistake, especially if I misread or misunderstood someone's stance or argument, but I think the consensus here was fairly overwhelming. It doesn't get any more clear than 11 v 3 on this proposal, with 3 being generally neutral. ~ RobTalk 20:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this matter.

I see that you and I have very different notions as to how consensus is determined. Your response shows that you view consensus as a head-count, without regard to the arguments presented by the parties to the debate. Indeed, you even state that your job (as closer) is "not to evaluate my subjective opinion on quality of arguments". But this is not the general view on how consensus gets determined here. I submit that most of us here on Wikipedia feel that consensus is determined based on the quality of the arguments raised in the debate. And in this regard, the closer is expected to disregard arguments that are irrelevant, nonsensical or not based on policy. As noted in my first posting, arguments that point to the Manual of Style's pronouncements regarding the use of flag icons simply are not proper justifications for removing the prose identification of a person's nationality.

I expect that you do not agree with my views. But even if we look at the debate as a "vote", you still did not correctly determine the consensus. In your tally, you identify both GoodDay and Killuminator as being supportive of removing the column. But they weren't. Both of them stated that they were in favor of keeping it. Similarly, you tally Miesianical and SMcCandlish as being neutral, even though both of them argued for keeping the column. In all, I see 17 editors who contributed to the RfC, with only 9 of them arguing for removing the column. Furthermore, two of them (Moxy and Mojoworker) stated that their primary concern was with the flag icons. So there were only seven out of the 17 who strongly supported removing the entire column. But whether the number of supports was 7 or 9, it did not constitute a "consensus", even under your head-count method of determining it.

In your response, you pointed me to the article that gives a comprehensive list of Nobel laureates that does not identify the nationalities of the laureates. But that article offers no identifying information whatsoever on the laureates. The appropriate comparison would be to the articles that do offer that information, all of which could have been seen by clicking through the column headers at the article you cited. For your convenience, I'll add them here:

I also add the following: Amateur Achievement Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Sylvester Medal, Polar Music Prize, and MusiCares Person of the Year. All of these articles are Featured Lists and all identify the nationality of the recipient. According to the logic of your close, all of them are in violation of MOS:FLAG and WP:ICONDECORATION, even the ones that do not use flag icons.

In my earlier posting, I noted that your close should have been limited to the treatment of Queen Elizabeth. Your response has led me to believe that you did indeed find a proper consensus for removing the flag icons that appeared in the country column (but not for removing the country column itself). Furthermore, restricting the effect of your closure to the use of flag icons would be consistent with your explicit reference (in the closing statement) to MOS:FLAG and WP:ICONDECORATION.

As a post-script, I note that the original RfC was called to decide the proper treatment of one entry in the table -- that of Queen Elizabeth. Your closure did not resolve that issue. A new RfC has been opened on the same page to discuss how Queen Elizabeth should be described in the "Notes" column of the table. When originally opened, the RfC included the option of removing the entire "Notes" column.

Thanks again for discussing this matter. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary: I'm going to review the arguments of the few you specifically believe I incorrectly weighted in a moment, but first I want to correct a misconception. I typed up a "tally" because you specifically brought up the point that there was significantly more opposition to removing the column than support. The tally was to show that this was not the case. Quality of arguments do play a role, clearly, but it's not my role as closer to determine which subjective arguments are convincing or not. That would be a supervote. It's my role to assess how convincing the arguments were to other editors. It's also my role to give more weight to arguments based on policies and guidelines. In this case, the choices offered up to the community were countries with flags vs. no countries, and editors resoundingly chose no countries.
Was this a false dichotomy? Probably. Could one side have argued early on in the debate for another option to be added that just removed flags? Sure, but they did not. I can only assess consensus based on the options and arguments made in the RfC, not my own opinions of what arguments and options should have been offered and vague predictions of how editors would have responded to those. Again, it's an issue of a supervote. I can't base a closure on what might have been. You could have made the arguments you're making here in the RfC, but you did not, and so I could not base my closure on them.
Lastly, if you look at the RfC, it was not about Queen Elizabeth's entry. It was about Queen Elizabeth's country entry. The notes issue is entirely separate from that RfC, and so I'm not surprised that issue hasn't been resolved. You can expect another comment in a few minutes after I look at the few specific editors you mentioned. If I misinterpreted one of their stances, I'll reconsider my close, of course. ~ RobTalk 19:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
In order,
  • GoodDay specifically supported option 5 as one of his preferences in his !vote. At best, he was neutral, but he does specifically say he would support Option 5, even if it is not his first choice.
  • Killuminator lists a few choices he supports, including Option 5, and specifically says they're listed in no particular order.
  • Miesianical argues for consistency, but he doesn't seem to care all that much how the information on country is presented. It's especially pertinent for Queen Elizabeth II, perhaps, which is why it's in the Notes currently. But nowhere does he argue against removing the column altogether, so long as we aren't just omitting Queen Elizabeth II's country.
  • SMcCandlish specifically notes Option 5 as "getting at the problem", so he clearly wasn't opposing that option.
  • Moxy specifically calls countries not relevant to the list. Same with Mojoworker, who says it's irrelevant where the recipients aren't representing their country.
I'm not seeing anything here that would make me rethink my close on the basis of misunderstanding the positions taken by participants. Of course, you're welcome to follow the steps at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you still disagree with the closure. ~ RobTalk 19:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Rob, I recognize that neither one of wants this discussion to go on indefinitely. In very brief response to your last posting, it seems to me that, in order to avoid making subjective judgments about arguments, all you did was create an equally-subjective method of tallying support. Specifically, you tally as "supports the removal" anyone who gave a nuanced response that accorded any weight at all to the removal option. The subjectivity here is that this method of tallying could just as easily have been used to categorize all nuanced responses as being "votes" to keep the column.

Even though we have not succeeded in convincing each other as to the correctness of the close, I do appreciate your taking the time to discuss this. I'll now give some thought to contesting the closure at CLOSECHALLENGE. Thanks again for the discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of how I assessed consensus, but you're entitled to your opinion. I considered some measure of support from all editors who specifically stated they supported Option 5, even if it wasn't their first choice (if it wasn't their first choice, it's weighted less, of course). I considered as neutral those editors who did not express an opinion on Option 5. Obviously, there are some difficulties in discussing how I considered each person's contributions to the discussion by categorizing as support/neutral/oppose because tallying supports/opposes is not how consensus works. ~ RobTalk 22:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence over length limits

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is around 702 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@L235: Please review it again. I've collapsed a section and moved it to the main case's talk page. It was a particularly important section for Arbs to read, so hopefully it will still be seen, but it was only tangentially related to actual case. ~ RobTalk 20:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Rob, thanks for the close. Would you be willing to either go simpler or more complex in your close explanation? As the justification as it reads now is slightly confusing. By this I mean if you just say there is one coat of arms and leave it at that it is simple and clear, however by saying the 1994 version it causes confusion in that there is a difference between the coat of arms (a textually described symbol) and a state logo (a specific image legally approved and adopted for official use). The Canadian coat of arms hasn't changed at all since 1921, as JKudklick amply demonstrated and added references. However, the actual specific legal rendering officially adopted by the state (logo) has changed from time to time. As all of the references show (linked at the discussion), there are presently two legally approved logos in current official use.

So, inline with the actual linked references there is one coat of arms and two in-use logos, for example the Government of Canada official symbols register describes both logos as the "Arms of Canada as designed in 1921 and revised in 1957" and "as revised in 1994", meaning that both logos/images are revisions of the same 1921 Arms. The RfC didn't ask about logos but only asked about how many coats of arms there are, so perhaps it would be simpler to focus only on the Arms and leave the logo issue aside, or you can comment on the logo issue as well, although there is no clear consensus on it as it wasn't specifically the topic of the RfC.

Cheers! trackratte (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Trackratte: I don't fully understand the distinction you're drawing, but I also don't think removing the reference to 1994 makes the close any less clear, so I've removed it. Cheers! ~ RobTalk 18:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Ha, it's a bit of a black hole the further down you go, but for example the 1957 logo is still being used even now (Spring, 2016), however both are just slightly different legally approved and official logos of the same 1921 coat of arms. I was just pointing out that saying that the fact that there is only one Arms is correct and unanimously supported, however saying there is only one logo is directly contradicted by a variety of official sources.
It's all good though, as the actual logo used in the article has stabilized on the 1994 one, the use of which has unanimous support by all editors, so it shouldn't even be an issue any longer. Thanks so much for all your time once again! trackratte (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

There was no need to alter the closing remarks. The RfC question made reference to both the 1957 and 1994 blazons and the consensus was clear that there is one current coat of arms and it follows the 1994 blazon (i.e. is the 1994 version). I don't believe one disagreeing editor's opinions shouls overturn that. -- MIESIANIACAL 18:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If there's a continued disagreement on which coat of arms to use at the aforementioned article? Then it's likely an Rfc on that matter, would be required. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Rob, sorry for cluttering up your talk page. Mies, and GoodDay, the RfC was on how many coats of arms there are, not on blazons, and not on logos. And as JKudlick did an excellent job of explaining, augmentations to Arms do not constitute a new blazon or Arms, so there is no 1957 versus 1994 Arms or Blazon, they are one and the same.
The only clear consensus is how many Arms of Canada there are, which was unanimously determined to be "one". That's it.
If the actual issue at stake here is which image should be used within the article, we have already determined elsewhere a unanimous consensus that it should be the legally approved 1994 logo in current official use.
So, the current close acknowledging the unanimous consensus of "one" is completely correct, the actual logo/image currently use within the article has unanimous support, and so I see no actual issue remaining, as both the number of arms and the actual image in use both have unanimous support. trackratte (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
That's good enough for me :) GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
The RfC question was quite clear: "Does the monarch of Canada currently possess, in the federal jurisdiction, one (by 1994 blazon) or two (by 1957 and 1994 blazons) coats of arms, or is there one set of arms with two different versions? [emphasis mine]" As noted, the consensus found there is one coat of arms and it is the one that follows the 1994 blazon (the "1994 version"). But, this is of little matter now, as everyone recognizes that was the consensus, regardless of whether it's noted in the closer's remarks or not. (Though, I see little reason why, if that is the consensus, it shouldn't be in the closing remarks.) -- MIESIANIACAL 19:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
The question is flawed then, as there is only one blazon. Augmentations to a coat of arms do not change the actual arms themselves, and do not constitute a new set of arms or a blazon, as remarked by several editors and with sources to back it up. The Arms have remained completely unchanged since 1921, only the specific official renderings have changed (ie a state logo).
So, the question was: is there "one" or "two" Arms of Canada. The unanimous response was: "one". The closer said that consensus was: "one", which is to say that the close is completely and unambiguously correct.
Thus, what is the issue you're after here? The RfC consensus was unanimous: issue solved. The informal RfC for which image to actually use in the article itself was also unanimous (the 1994 official logo): issue solved. As we can see, there is unanimous support for the current state of affairs, without a single dissenter. So what are we even talking about here?
Lastly, if you wish to bicker further about a currently non-existent problem, I suggest finding a different venue than Rob's talk page. trackratte (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
When I altered my closing remarks, I was under the impression there was some nuance here I wasn't understanding about coat of arms vs. logos. Instead, it appears the editor who requested the change was seeking to make an, in my opinion, bogus distinction between a consensus that there's one version of the coat of arms and one version of the coat of arms that can correctly be identified with two different images. To be clear, there was consensus that there existed one coat of arms, identified only by the 1997 version. I am reverting my change to the closing remarks to make this abundantly clear and prevent future issues. ~ RobTalk 19:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually Rob, two or more editors brought up the point, with sources, that the question was flawed in that there is no separate 1957 versus 1994 Arms or blazons, the Arms and Blazon itself is completely unchanged in both cases. So, as the RfC was not on any one specific rendering, there is no consensus around the 1954 or 1994 image, only on the number of Arms. There can theoretically be an unlimited number of renderings, such as different peoples interpretive drawings, of which there are several on Commons.
There simply is no 1994 Arms or blazon, only a 1994 official rendition of the same 1921 Arms that exists today. Which is why saying (1994 Arms) is confusing. It would actually technically be the "Arms of Canada as designed in 1921 and revised in 1994", but the question wasn't about how many image revisions there were, but how many arms there are. I suppose the most accurate close would be "There is only one Coat of Arms of Canada, the Arms of Cnaada as designed in 1921". trackratte (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
It was clear to every editor that participated in this discussion and referred to one version that they were referring to a specific image. Whether this was technically correct usage of the terminology surrounding coat of arms is irrelevant. The editors involved in the discussion understood what they were discussing, and they reached a consensus that is currently represented in the close. There is no meaningful distinction between "a 1994 Arms" and "the 1994 rendition of the Arms" outside of legal definitions. The common person (and common editor) does not recognize any meaningful difference when confronted with those terms. ~ RobTalk 20:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

As some users' stated during the RFC:

Qex: "a blazon in respect of a single current "officially" authorised and copyrighted representation of the same blazon for the federal jurisdiction"
Track: "It is quite clear that Canada (Sovereign in Right of Canada) only has one coat of arms "as designed in 1921 and revised in 1957" and "as revised in 1994"
JKudlick: "In 1994, the pre-existing arms were augmented with the annulet of the Order of Canada as the Arms and Supporters of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada. However, the annulet is not a required component of the arms" --> And discussed, with sources, how there were no changes to the Arms themselves in 1994.
Gerard: "Adding an augmentation does not make an entirely new CoA. Neither does the existence of more than one artistic rendition"
As you can see, several users' pointed out that there is only one coat of arms because the 1957 and 1994 blazons are the exact same thing, so their decision was based on the acknowledgement that there is no 1957/1994 blazon distinction. User Gerard stated that the existence of multiple images has no effect on the Arms themselves. So absolutely a distinction was made during this RfC between the Arms themselves (blazon), and various images. To say there is consensus that there exists only one image (the 1994 image) is not only an invention, but is also in direct conflict with the reliable sources: [5][6][7]
And to say that everyone voted for a specific image is obviously untrue, as I clearly voted on the number of Arms of Canada, not the number of images, as did JKudlick, Gerard, and perhaps others. While still another three or more editors' only concerns was that an official image be used and did not comment at all on the number of images that actually exist, or the number of blazons, etc. trackratte (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I think we're talking a bit in circles here, but we're saying more-or-less the same thing. I see this RfC (and the surrounding discussions, which I also looked at in making the close) as answering two questions:
  1. How many coats of arms are there? One.
  2. What image of the single coat of arms is appropriate for inclusion in the article? The 1997 version.
Do you disagree with that? ~ RobTalk 20:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Rob, the question stated "(by 1994 blazon) or two (by 1957 and 1994 blazons)". A blazon is a text, not an image. The RfC question makes no mention of anything to do with images at all. As multiple editors pointed out, there is no distinction between the 1957 or 1994 blazon, but that the Arms of Canada are based on the unchanged 1921 blazon. The augmentation of the order of Canada that was authorized in the early 90s does not constitute any change to the blazon or Arms themselves as they are simply that, an authorized augmentation, which is why both the augmented and unaugment images of the Arms continue to be used today, with an example of unaugment Arms from last month used to represent the Canadian state (Crown). I think, as JKudlick and Gerard pointed out, that the question of augmentation is the root of the confusion, as they represent an honour which can be optionally displayed, but is not mandatory and so does not change the actual arms/blazon themselves, thus the 1921 and 1994 blazons are actually the exact same thing. So, the actual RfC question itself is confusing, as it is entirely predicated on a premise which in fact does not exist.
It is like asking: "How many Queens of Canada are there? One (1952 person), or two (1952 and 1994 people)?" Of course everyone is going to say One. However, to close saying "One (1994)" is confusing and odd, as Canada had the same Queen in both 1952 and 1994. Which image of Elizabeth II should be used in the article (a photo from 1952, or a photo from any other date) is completely irrelevant to the stated question. Which is why I first came here asking for the close to only mention that consensus is for "One", as the Arms/Blazon mentioned in the question from '57 is the same one as in '94. This entire debate is a product of a very odd RfC, as how many Arms of Canada there are has never been a subject of debate, the question itself is predicated on a distinction which does not exist, and the result has no clear link to anything in the article. It's like starting an RfC on whether or not the United States has one or two Flags of the United States at the President of the United States pages, why? And as has already been mentioned, the current image used in the article has universal support, so is not even an issue, and so the use of any one image is not linked to this RfC, as the proposer themselves stated.
I agree with your point one, and saying that in your close is completely correct.
Point 2 is flawed in that no mention of any "image" is made in the RfC question. No mention of image suitability for use in the article was made in the RfC question either. In fact, when a user (Moxy) stated what image they thought should be used, the RfC proposer (Mies) stated "That's not what the RfC is focused on", so quite clearly then the RfC was not about images, as the proposer themselves made clear. The question was restricted to one of textual blazons (arms), to which everyone stated that there is only one, and as has been pointed out multiple times, making a distinction between 1957 and 1994 blazons is confusing, as there is no distinction.
So to say that consensus is for one coat of arms is correct, however to say that there is consensus for a specific image is not, as it wasn't even the topic of the RfC in question, and when mentioned, was told by the proposer that the RfC is not about an image. trackratte (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
And as you can see at Commons, there are multiple ways to draw different images all based on the same blazon. So, even when we all agree that there is one blazon (the 1921/1957/1994, it doesn't matter they're all the same blazon), there are an infinite number of images that could result, and which specific image should be used was not at all resolved by this RfC (although it was resolved at a different talk page).
For example, whether this 1994 image should be used or this 1994 image should be used instead, is completely undecided by this RfC. trackratte (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing being overturned here. The substance of the close hasn't changed. There were two options presented at the RfC (1997 version or 1997 and an earlier version). These options were referred to as "one" and "two" throughout the debate, and no confusion was ever expressed over this. A closure as using one coat of arms is clearly referring to the option discussed (1997 version). I altered the wording because one editor found it confusing and no editor acting in good faith could possibly misinterpret the current wording of the closure within the context of the discussion and options presented. If anyone does happen to misinterpret it, feel free to link them to this. ~ RobTalk 19:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This section could pass off as an RfC of its own... Izkala (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Ha, yep, just a bunch of folks building sheds. trackratte (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for T.J. Acree

Updated DYK query.svgOn 25 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article T.J. Acree, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that wide receiver T.J. Acree was a walk-on in college but went on to play in the Canadian Football League? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/T.J. Acree. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, T.J. Acree), 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.

WormTT(talk) 09:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC closure

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, BU Rob13. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ryk72: Please see Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Clarification_of_RfC_Closure, which hopefully puts the issue to rest. I'm sure editors will now argue sentence-level inclusion, but my close cannot deal with those issues, and I recommend future RfCs to solve that. This at least puts the broad issue to rest, hopefully. ~ RobTalk 21:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Women}}

Sorry, why are you now removing {{WikiProject Women}} banners from articles that your bot has just added? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

  • @Shawn in Montreal: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women. Despite the discussion there that went on for over a week about this run of tagging, members have now objected to the scope of tags, so I'm rolling back the edits until they sort out what the scope of their project is. ~ RobTalk 19:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
MFW you were...all...the last 50 recent changes. TimothyJosephWood 20:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: Yeah, mass rollback is a bitch. I wish the project members disputing the tagging had come out of the woodwork before the run. That discussion was ongoing for a solid 2+ weeks. ~ RobTalk 20:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

duplicate class parameter

should only have one class parameter, and the second one that you added is ignored due to the ordering. 98.230.192.179 (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That was part of a bot run, and the mistake was due to another editor marking the template with an invalid class in the past. ~ RobTalk 22:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Congrats!

Dyk25CE.svg The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
Congratulations on getting 25 DYKs featured on the homepage, and thanks for the excellent work you have put into creating articles about Canadian football. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 04:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ashorocetus: Thanks! ~ RobTalk 04:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

RFBOT

Task 14 as been approved. — xaosflux Talk 00:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:RX sorry so slow because

Hello Rob,

Thanks for your response to my query at WP:RX. There is a real reason that I didn't respond: I allegedly have access to Cambridge via Wikipedia. It lets me log in, but then I cannot access very much of anything. I have been hoping and hoping the problem would get fixed (I emailed Cambridge twice), but it hasn't. Sorry!

I don't need the article I originally requested, because I found a different article which also provides the info I was searching for... However, as for ongoing requests, if you have access to these (via Cambridge), it might be helpful:

  • Bernard S. Cohn, "The Initial British Impact on India: A case study of the Benares region", The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol 19, No 4.no 7 settlements
  • Washbrook, D. A. (1981). "Law, State and Agrarian Society in Colonial India". Modern Asian Studies 15 (3): 649–721. doi:10.1017/s0026749x00008714

Thanks!   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: I have access to both. Email me via Special:EmailUser and I'll send them. ~ RobTalk 06:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Task 13 has been approved, with an initial throttle limit, please see the approval page for details. — xaosflux Talk 14:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Tiny refactor

I popped a * in just to separate out our comments a bit since they were replies to the same person. I have issues with large wedges of text so it breaks it up a bit. Technically I altered your comment so thought you should know. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: Thanks for the notification, and obviously it's not a problem. Edit conflicts are annoying. ~ RobTalk 10:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Well also my reply was far more critical than your more balanced one ;) So I didnt want you getting splashed with the tar n feathers no doubt heading my way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:Unicode orphaning

You've removed {{Unicode}} from a number of templates where it was used to force-render trailing or leading whitespace inside a bracketed clause. I've fixed a bunch I've come across (see my contribs) but there's probably more I haven't - could you please review your orphaning of {{Unicode}} in templatespace? Thanks! Izkala (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverting these is gonna make no difference as the output of the now {{Unicode| }} is an empty string. Izkala (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Izkala: I've rolled back the majority of it. If you find any other instances, please message me so I can find the timestamp and roll back any orphaning I did around that time as well. This leaves the use of Unicode, but honestly, that doesn't really matter since it's remaining deprecated. (Not sure I understand the comment you left that I conflicted with; the templates are now exactly as I found them, and no changes to {{Unicode}} have occurred in the meantime. If there's a problem remaining, it was there when I stumbled upon the Fb templates.) ~ RobTalk 19:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The {{Unicode}} template has been recently edited to remove the Unicode span tag, which is what must've made the rendering of whitespace possible at one time. With or without the {{Unicode}} transclusion, the output of these templates is now identical. Izkala (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Izkala: That occurred well before my edits. I've reverted back to the situation when I came upon the templates, which fixes my mistake (although it doesn't do anything for output, it certainly does make it a lot easier for other editors to identify where fixes for spacing are needed). Another editor will have to actually fix the spacing. It's thesis submission time, so my time is limited, and I'm mostly focused on getting an article up to GA with what little time I have available. ~ RobTalk 19:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've patched it up for now... Good luck with your thesis. Izkala (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Thanks. I'll try to revisit this in like two weeks after graduation. It's annoying the template was used in this way at all. It should not have been. ~ RobTalk 19:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please fix this within 24 hours; I will revert the template, as it erroniously adds a space that should not be there. I don't care if the template was abused; The space is screwing up the remaining substitutions. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
How did this suddenly become our issue to fix 'within 24 hours'? The bodge is doing its job, I've seen no evidence it's affecting any articles negatively, and I've stopped the subst bot by removing the substitution notice from the doc page. Izkala (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Edokter: I wasn't the one who made the most recent edit on the template. Did you mean to talk to Izkala? As of 19:11, 8 May 2016, both the template itself and all of the relevant transclusions were exactly how they were before I touched them, so there's no onus on me to complete the orphaning. I corrected my mistake by rolling back the substitutions. I can tell you up-front that I will not have any availability in the next 24 hours (or next two weeks) to find a long-term fix for the Fb templates. Also, now that Izkala mentions it, what substitutions are you talking about? Substitution was entirely done except for a few fully protected/template protected pages that we decided to just leave. The only transclusions left that might be worth actioning on are the template transclusions that require the fix Izkala implemented. ~ RobTalk 11:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Page mover

Unless my eyes are, uuum, cheated by some spell, you voted both in support and opposition of 'Allow moving of move-protected pages'. Izkala (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's embarrassing. I'm going to frame it as "seeing both sides of the debate" and move along. I've stricken the earlier oppose. I don't know what on earth I was thinking when I wrote it; I don't recall doing that at all. ~ RobTalk 12:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic RFC

Hello, In your closing remarks of the RFC on this page, you noted in closing the RFC that no POV positions regarding the status of the DPR should be put into the article. The faction of editors who had opposed using the Country type infobox have put a status parameter in the infobox, and I have started a discussion on the talk page regarding its inclusion and how the RFC would affect it. If you could opine on the talk page how the RFC affects this issue if at all, it would be much appreciated.XavierGreen (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Harry Abofs

Updated DYK query.svgOn 11 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Harry Abofs, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Canadian football return specialist Harry Abofs accidentally gave away the Toronto Argonauts' final possession of the 56th Grey Cup by kicking the ball out of bounds? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Abofs. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Harry Abofs), 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) 00:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

What happens when your signature doesn't render your wiki-ID?

Your edit summary said "see talk", but my good faith search of Talk:Resting bitch face for "BU Rob13" came up empty. I honestly thought you had written "see talk" in your edit summary, and had either gotten distracted, or had never gotten around to leaving that explanation. When your signature isn't rendered within your wiki-id, I think you can expect to continue to confuse good faith respondents, in future.

I have been known to put "see talk" in an edit summary, only to fail to leave that explanation, because I lose my connection, or I got distracted, so I forgive other people who occasionally forget.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: I understand. While we disagree on the images for this article, I don't doubt you're acting in good faith. ~ RobTalk 00:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hello BU Rob,

User:Izno wanted me to ask you if the template editor userright would be useful to you? So I am now asking you.

Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: It definitely would, though not in the "typical" way. I've been handling many of the closures at WP:TFD, so it would be helpful to simply be able to remove TfD notices and add {{being deleted}} where applicable. It would also be useful when I'm orphaning templates such as {{Unicode}}, which were formerly in high use and were used in other template-protected templates. I'm not sure exactly how many template-protected edit requests I've made, but it's been enough that I've got to be annoying the template editors with the trivial requests. ~ RobTalk 21:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get back to this. Now done, please use carefully. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Thanks! Honestly, for any substantive edits, I'll probably grab another template editor to check my work. Best to know my limits whether or not I have the right. It will be extremely useful for TfD work, though! ~ RobTalk 00:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey, June 7 came early! Just noticed you're now active on TPERTable. Enjoy! (formerly Bazj) for (;;) (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. I have it on my watchlist, although I wouldn't necessarily characterize myself as "active". I'm helping out with simple requests and leaving the "hard stuff" to the experts. ~ RobTalk 15:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Your closure of the school/university infobox address RfC has been called into question here. I dunno if you wanna offer an explanation or anything, but I thought I'd let you know. Izkala (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Izkala: Thanks for the heads up. It's amazing how many editors will spend pages discussing a close instead of just pinging the closer. In any event, the disagreement there appears to be how to implement the consensus, and the discussion didn't touch on those details. I can't provide any clarification based on the discussion at the RfC. ~ RobTalk 20:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

ISBN message

I'm confused by the "automated" message you left on Talk:Phantoms in the Brain: what do you mean by "appropriate for the infobox"? And what do you mean by "concerns that this change did not show up on watchlists"? Whose concerns? The contributors to the RfC you cited were quite aware that changes on Wikidata don't appear on Wikipedia watchlists; am I to gather that all Wikidata-derived data will now be accompanied by a "concerned" talk page message? That seems inefficient at best, quixotic at worst, since Phase II is moving full-speed ahead. If you want to keep track of pages that use wikidata, maybe add a tracking category to the infobox templates. —swpbT 23:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Swpb: No, that is not something I intend to repeat. There were very specific concerns related to books that editors have brought up at the talk page of {{Infobox book}}. In particular, there are some old books where the original edition had no ISBN (and should therefore have nothing in the infobox, according to past practices), but the ISBN for modern editions is available on Wikidata. Tracking categories exist, but some editors at the talk page considered that insufficient, so I quickly placed around 70 talk page messages in an attempt to address those concerns. ~ RobTalk 23:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. You might consider amending those messages to explain the particular issue of first editions lacking ISBNs, to avoid causing similar confusion for other editors about the purpose of the message. —swpbT 23:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Mastertone/Rington sales

Hi i would like to say that the ringtone for Sugar we're going down was certified Gold on June 16 2006, if you don't believe me you can go on the RIAA website, go to the gold and platinum page and when you get the search bar type in the artist box fall out boy and where it says type click on Mastertone it will show a gold mastertone certification. certification[1]. and for Green Day's "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" which also has a gold mastertone certification and a gold digital certification which on its page is not shown. could please put the ringtone certification for both sugar we're going down and for boulevard of broken dreams thanks. Also on the List of awards and nominations received by Green Day it doesn't show that green day won 2 "Nickelodeon Australian Kids' Choice Awards" in 2005 and 2006 for fave music video and for international group if you could make those changes thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwkg (talkcontribs) 23:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jwkg: I reverted your edit because you changed the sales number to an incorrect (or at the very least, unsourced) value. Please ensure that future edits introducing ringtone chartings are accompanied by a source. ~ RobTalk 00:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

References

kids choice awards australia

on the "List of awards and nominations received by Green Day" it does not show the winnings. the proof they won is on Nickelodeon Australian Kids' Choice Awards and on Nickelodeon Australian Kids' Choice Awards 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwkg (talkcontribs) 00:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jwkg: Have you edited Wikipedia before under another account, perhaps? Your interest in Green Day and pattern of editing reminds me of another editor. ~ RobTalk 01:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"Old" peer review?

Regarding this edit by User:BU RoBOT: How is the age of a peer review defined? At what point does the bot decide to archive it? I have little experience with PRs, but I was under the impression that anyone asking for one needs to be prepared to wait a long time until a reviewer steps up to the task. There has been no discussion at all yet in the single month since this review was requested. It seems awfully premature to archive the request already. — Gorthian (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gorthian: Based on the time period requested by members of the project, the time limit is currently set at 30 days. If you'd like to change the default time, I'd take it up on the project's talk page; it's technically trivial for me to change that. ~ RobTalk 04:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
My apologies. I wasn't even aware there was an official peer-review project, just assumed that the archived request I was reading was a subpage of the article. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@Gorthian: No worries. If you care to follow up on this, the talk page of the project (actually, it's not technically a project, but I digress) is at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. The regular participants may very well be receptive to extending the archiving time to 45 days. Their original plan was to archive articles after 15 days of no response and at least 30 days since creation, possibly longer. Unfortunately, there's no magic word to indicate creation time, so I can't easily separate the criteria out like that. ~ RobTalk 04:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I may or may not follow up on that in a few days. I'm too tired now to be clear-headed. Thanks for your encouragement.— Gorthian (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Email

I replied. It's a clunky old Yahoo account, so check Junk and Clutter folders if you still haven't received it. BrineStans (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Got it. BrineStans (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Marcus Adams (Canadian football)

Updated DYK query.svgOn 17 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marcus Adams (Canadian football), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Canadian football player Marcus Adams left the Rough Riders to join the Roughriders? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marcus Adams (Canadian football). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Marcus Adams (Canadian football)), 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) 01:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your assessment of Talk:Bitcoin#RfC: Should the "Ponzi scheme dispute" section be deleted?

Hi, and thank you for your uneasy work when making the assessment. Nevertheless, I claim that you made an error. I do agree with you that opinions of Nouriel Roubini and Eric Pozner can be called "scholarly", however, as the cited sources confirm, neither Eric Pozner, nor Nouriel Roubini actually claimed that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. Eric Pozner, in fact, claimed that bitcoin is not a real Ponzi scheme in his article. Nouriel Roubini was miscited; his original Twitter post, on which two news articles based their claims, was that "bitcoin is a Ponzi game". Since there is no doubt that Nouriel Roubini knows the "Ponzi scheme" term, it is not hard to observe that when making his post, Nouriel Roubini wanted to make a distinction between a Ponzi scheme and bitcoin. Thus, there are no scholarly claims stating that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, in fact, making such a theory WP:FRINGE. That holds, unless we misrepresent the available sources. Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Thanks for your message. Ponzi game and Ponzi scheme are equivalent terms; see here. The term "Ponzi game" emphasizes the connection to game theory and is generally preferred by economists. I could dig out the game theory textbook from one of my PhD courses to source the equivalence as well, if necessary. While Eric Posner's article later draws distinctions between a "regular" Ponzi scheme and Bitcoin, he starts with the provocative subtitle "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme", which leaves little to the imagination. He later says that "More than anything else, it resembles a Ponzi scheme". Please note that my close did not say Bitcoin was a Ponzi scheme but rather stated that the section should be kept. As I called for in my close, edits for neutrality are needed to ensure that the section matches what the sources actually say. For instance, I just made a small edit here to that effect. ~ RobTalk 08:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Thank you for the additional explanation and edit. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You may be interested in knowing that the edit you made was reverted. To discuss it, I added a talk section here: Talk:Bitcoin#Edits against the consensus established by the RfC Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

  • @Ladislav Mecir: Yes, I replied there a couple minutes before you posted here. ~ RobTalk 06:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion notice bot

Would you be able to program that deletion notice bot that I proposed? I know the bot request section is much backlogged right now, but it would be an important bot to have. Laber□T 16:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Laberkiste: I do all my botwork in AWB, which is not well-suited to this task. Another botop will have to help with this. ~ RobTalk 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, do you know anyone who would probably do it? --Laber□T 18:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Laberkiste: Not off the top of my head. There are plenty of potential botops, but I can't think of any who have done very similar work in the past. In the short term, your goal should be to demonstrate consensus for this bot by creating a discussion at one of the village pumps or another appropriate location. No bot operator will be able to do anything until clear consensus for such a task is demonstrated. ~ RobTalk 19:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Bot_that_reinstates_removed_deletion_notices. --Laber□T 08:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Please be very mindful of WP:BLP. The "source" is a op/ed piece slamming Trump because it's in fashion. "Wee! Trump's a big jerk! Let's shame him!" Yawn. It's not encyclopedic at all to use sources like that. Even it it's lots of fun to read. Doc talk 07:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Coverage by major newspapers is not a BLP violation. It's well-sourced. BLP specifically applies to "unsourced or poorly sourced" contentious material. ~ RobTalk 08:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Both "sources" are op-ed pieces. They are not news articles. Doc talk 08:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Doc9871: That's false on the face of it. The Washington Post article was in their Politics section, not an editorial section. The author is a senior editor and journalist, not an opinion writer. The New Yorker article is written by John Cassidy, a staff writer who writes a column for their politics section. Again, does not write opinion pieces. I've provided many other links to non-editorial stories on the talk page, which is the appropriate place to continue this discussion. ~ RobTalk 08:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Here's the problem. They are all opinion pieces. The use of "I've" in the Cassidy article gives that away. Fluff. No respectable news item goes into the first person, ever. Or an encyclopedia. You got some sources to show fleeting notability for this, but the sources all suck pretty bad if we want a decent article. Unbiased as much as possible, as well. Hah! Doc talk 08:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Tony Akins (Canadian football)

Updated DYK query.svgOn 18 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tony Akins (Canadian football), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Canadian football player Tony Akins returned two punts exactly 65 yards for touchdowns in 2000? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tony Akins (Canadian football). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tony Akins (Canadian football)), 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) 12:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)