Discussion more than (approximately) one year old can be found at User talk:dcljr/Archive.
- 1 Let Me In
- 2 Re: reverts
- 3 List of Wikipedians by number of edits
- 4 Category:Fisheries organizations has been nominated for discussion
- 5 On Gymnastics article
- 6 Portal:Mathematics
- 7 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 8 Nomination of Mathematical statistics for deletion
- 9 European Artistic Gymnastics Championships (disambiguation)
- 10 Encrypt urls listed at Redirects for discussion
- 11 Wikispecies
- 12 Closing markup bot?
- 13 Latvia Wiktionary
Let Me In
Actually on my DVD version its harder to hear that song sung than on the online version of the ending I've just checked. Certainly less apparent. Thanks for correcting me.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Category:Fisheries organizations has been nominated for discussion
Category:Fisheries organizations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
On Gymnastics article
I love your enthusiasm and love of the Gymnastics article however I would like to point out why I changed the heading from International Competitive Gymnastics to FIG Recognized forms. The reason is because the other forms are in fact competitive and most are on an international scale. There is a Men's Rhythmic Gymnastics World Championships held in Japan as well as an Aesthetic Group Gymnastics World Championships and a Wheel Gymnastics World Championships. TeamGym has a European Championships as well. Rather than start an edit war which would bring us nowhere I thought I would bring up these points and allow you to show me your reasoning. Anyone who loves Gymnastics is a friend to me. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. - dcljr (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't be better to keep all captions beginning with a majuscule? Those captions are sentences after all.
Also, more important:
- Actually, none of them are complete sentences. I see the last 5 are capitalized (and one even has a period), but that doesn't match the first 18, which are not. I'll think about it… As for the feature article issue, you should probably talk to User:JuPitEer about that. I've never edited that page. - dcljr (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Nomination of Mathematical statistics for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematical statistics (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I hope I wasn't too overbearing with what I was trying to relay here. I wanted to make sure that I provided the proper information to you as I wasn't sure what you were trying to accomplish and tried to guide you to whatever information or resolution you were looking for. (Unfortunately, I had to do so over more than one edit since I realized I forgot some things.) But, I did see that you added a comment to the discussion, so I assume you know what you were trying to accomplish. But, either way ... yes, sometimes, guidelines can be confusing, especially if read wrong; can't say I haven't misinterpreted a guideline before. Steel1943 (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. I coulda sworn that the guideline was calling for something that could only be accomplished by the switch I was asking about. (If a redirect and its target needed switching, that would indeed require a discussion at RFD.) Not sure how I misread that. - dcljr (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- I can't admit that I haven't been confused on that myself in the past. I think the WP:INTDAB guideline was written that way because of bots that flag links to disambiguation pages as links that need disambiguating ... unless the link ends with "(disambiguation)". (Also, for what it's worth, any discussions that require a page move seem to go through Wikipedia:Requested moves, even if the move is to overwrite an existing redirect. See this recent example of another discussion closed to "wrong forum" for reference: (1), as well as redirect deletion reason "D9".) Steel1943 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Encrypt urls listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Encrypt urls. Since you had some involvement with the Encrypt urls redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Too late, I just read your comment here, and want to greet you warmly back to Wikispecies, which is now developing with less conflicts. Please also support with vote here, so we can reach the 25 votes minimum rule. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up and invite, but I'm not really part of that community anymore, and I don't have the time to investigate the nominated users in order to have a good basis for my vote. Good luck to all, though. Maybe someday I'll pop my head in and look around… - dcljr (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Closing markup bot?
Did we ever get anywhere on a bot for closing the bold and italics markup on tennis articles? It is really getting tiresome for us (me in particular) to have to fix new article after new article. Editors simply say "look at how many old articles are done this way" and then they go on their merry way adding more and more bad coding. I have told the most blatant abusers and when they ignore it 15 minutes later started giving out disruptive editing warnings. I have been reverting their incorrect edits but it seems to be never ending. Any thoughts? Even if it wasn't a bot going around if there was something that we could use article by article to make it easier, like we can do when we fix hyphens/dashes/minussigns with a simple click. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't get anywhere on it. Sorry. I started to create regex substitutions that would work for various cases; then when that was taking too long I switched to just collecting examples of the kinds of cases that would need to be fixed. But shortly after I started that I was pulled away by other things and never got back to it. Thanks for continuing to fix the articles as they get created (and dealing with the offending editors). I know it's a lot of work. As for getting bot help, I figure a good bot request requires a list of prototypical examples that cover the vast majority of instances that need to be fixed (ideally all of them, of course, but that's probably an impossible bar to reach — I've collected a random smattering in my sandbox), a good sampling of pages to test any proposed solution(s) on, and a larger list of all pages that need checking (probably any main-namespace page transcluding any of the templates listed in Category:Tennis tournament bracket templates). I should offer my services on some of this, but I'm afraid that might (continue to) slow down progress on it. Let me know what your plans are... (Happy 10-10-10 anniversary, BTW.) - dcljr (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hilarious... I scratched my head for a few minutes trying to figure out what 10-10-10 was.... I felt I was out of the loop on something. I can't believe it's been that long on Wikipedia. More precisely I can't believe I didn't do something bad enough to be thrown out. If you didn't see it I did post the problem we are having over at The Village Pump (technical) to see if there are more reasons we could use to get editors to close the bold. We'll see if they come up with anything more. Some editors we've had a problem with have actually started closing the bold in the day or two... which is great since we really need them to keep creating articles. Of course one got blocked for 3 days. Now if we could only figure out a way to make it easier to correct the old articles we might have something. It's gotta be tough since it won't know just where to put the closing quotes. Since it's mostly bold maybe I'll at least make a keyboard macro for myself to plop in 3 quote marks with a single key. That won't help a lot but if I have to correct 50 markup errors in a single article it's 50 keystrokes rather than 150. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)