User talk:Od Mishehu/Archive16

Template:Taxonomy/Pygopodomorpha

As you will have seen, at Template:Taxonomy/Pygopodomorpha I changed the rank again to "clade" because the parent is an infraorder. Do you have a source for this classification? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply copying from extant taxoboxes - in this case, the infobox which was on Diplodactylidae. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do get the impression that the entire Squamata taxoinomy system is screwed up; the first step to fix it, I believe, is to set up the sutomatic taxobox system in all relevant articles - and I'm using the extant taxoboxes for all parent and rank information. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've discovered, using existing taxoboxes as information sources is often not a good idea! Wikispecies here treats Gekkota as a suborder and Pygopodomorpha as an infraorder, which works. Or there's another self-consistent system here. I suggest going with Wikispecies for now. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent phylogenetic study seems to be this one, but like almost all such studies, doesn't give a classification. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Squamata is that the families within it have been rearranged several times, and are apparently still disputed to some degree (see, for example, Toxicofera). If we end up taking pieces of taxonomy from different sources, we'll end up with a complete mess. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree. That's why I suggested going with Wikispecies for now, even though it's not consistent with the latest phylogenetic work. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Can you please provide evidence that bypassing redirects to navboxes etc. as a low priority secondary tasks has/had consensus? Since, I assumed good faith and fixed many of these I would like to know especially now that you identify my editing as problem. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never bypassed navbox redirects as an edit; I some times have done it with an edit. My taxobox work isn't bypassing redirects - it's changing them to a separate template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you did. I said that you indirectly(?) implied that this is OK to be done by others. Am I wrong? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When did I imply that? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add pages to WP:AWB/TR? The initial purpose was only to help AWB work with various templates and avoid bugs. E.g. [1]. Now I see that other did the same too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AWB/TR is explicitly for actions which should be done in addition to edits, not as edits; this would tend to prove my point. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this written? That's what I ask. I need this to prove that this edits at least as "in addition" are welcome. I am not against you. I am trying to understand. I now you are right because this is done for many years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not whether these actions should be done in addition; the issue is whether they can be done as edits. The answer to that is AWB rule #4, as well as CONMETICBOT. In the case of stub templates, I did discuss the issue in WikiProject Stub Sorting, and there was no ojection to listing them there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK this part is clear. The thing is not clear to me is how a page that we the AWB developers had only for internal issues mainly regarding tagging changed to become a place to use to orphan redirects even as low priority task. So, I don't seek answer to the later question. I seek answer to the question I posed. Do you know if it was somewhere decided that this page can be used to bypass redirects as secondary/low priority task? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea when or where any decisions about the AWB fixes were made. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think that perhaps AWB should diactivate this feature. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better idea: As I proposed, we should have a new set of discussions on what general fixes should be included; include this question as part of that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not right now. This mass change in the TR page caused bot malfunction. First, I have to fix this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll (try to) change the AWB code to only check the redirects in WP:AWB/TR and not actually replace them. There seems to be some consensus to bypass certain redirects as a secondary task but I can't find any formal discussion supporting this. I 've seen people mentioning this is OK but I still wonder where that came from. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 380

Hello Od Mishehu. I notice you sometimes handle the filter reports. Could you look at this one and see if there is something wrong with Filter 380? I can't see what the filter is objecting to. The IP seemed to be adding references. Or should I just mark this kind of thing as a false positive? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:The problem here, I believe, is the reference to a person by the name of "Roxanne Gay", along with a url which includes this person's last name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should mark this as a false positive. When this happens, is there any button to approve the edit? EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, You just haveto manually copy over the relevant sections from one of the places with the relevant source - either the "Changes made in edit" pn top, or one of the Action Parameters containing the relevant source data (added_lines, new_wikitext). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests

Hello! I monitor Category:Requests for unblock and two of your pages, User:Od Mishehu/unblock-global and User:Od Mishehu/unblock-global/doc, are showing up there because you are using the unblock templates there. Could you please edit those pages? It's obviously perfectly fine if you just link to the templates (perhaps, showing how to use them) rather than using those templates directly. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I too have been checking on those two pages because they were showing up in Category:Requests for unblock. Potentially, a large number of administrators could waste time checking on them, so for the present I have blanked the pages. I don't know what your purpose is in having those pages, but perhaps you could achieve whatever the purpose is by some means that does not cause the same problem, such as displaying the relevant version from the page's editing history when you wish to use it, rather than saving it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm tring to construct a good system for handling requests for locally disabling global blocks; I didn't even think about the category. I have disabled the category now, so there should be no problems there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this article should be removed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Kukhianidze — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.189.211 (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of un-redirected pages to Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed

I'm contacting you because you participated in this proposal discussion. While the proposal was approved, it has not received developer action. The request is now under consideration as part of the 2017 Developer Wishlist, with voting open through the end of day on Tuesday (23:59 UTC). The latter link describes the voting process, if you are interested. —swpb^T 18:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talkpage-archive-bot for Draft:Oleg Atbashian

Hello Od Mishehu, thanks for responding to my abusefilter-related woes. The reason that I manually created the first few archives, was to be able to retain *just* the talkpage-sections that were still needing a response. I'm training two or three COI-encumbered beginners, and they have the advantage over myself of #1) knowing a lot about the subject-matter of the BLP article, and #2) speaking Russian which is necessary for some of the WP:NONENGLISH references. But I think the page is too messy for them to be able to find where I need their input.

In other words, WP:TIAD and I don't want to wait 90 days for the bot to start archiving :-)

Unfortunately, the filter won't let me clean up the talkpage because it blocks me from section-blanking, presumably. Is there a way to force the bot to archive everything, and then let me manually restore the sections which are still being actively worked on, so the talkpage is no longer such a mess? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You won't need to wait 90 days for the bot to start; it should do most of the work in the next run, between midnight and 5:40 AM UTC.
Section blanking by anonymous users is very common vandalism. The edit filter is right to prevent that in neasrly all cases.
I have cut the time any specific section must wait down to 14 days.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that section-blanking is usually something that needs warning&tagging, although of course, "disallow" means that the only way to get the work done is for somebody else to help out. My complaint is not that section-blanking ought to be allowed, necessarily, but rather my complaint is that I seem to remember it *is* usually allowed in talkspace (as opposed to mainspace). And in particular, the filter which disallowed my edit, falsely claimed I was "[r]eplacing a page with obscenities"[2] ... which is not what I actually did :-)

If it had said 'section blanking not allowed by anons' then I would have opened up a teahouse request for assistance, but since it incorrectly said 'replacing page with obscenities' instead, I filed the false-positive for somebody to look at the buggy filter. Whether or not it was Correct under the modern filter-regime, to prevent anons from section-blanking on talkpages, it is certainly incorrect to call it 'replaced page with obsenities' rather than 'anons no longer allowed to section-blank on talkpages' or the equivalent. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely, I see that ion the same edit, you reduced the length of the talk page significantly, and added an obscenity (I won't give precise details here), in the same edit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bot did its run on the page at 5:17 UTC - during the rangee of times I said it would. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gračanica monastery

Rename then the article Gračanica monastery on Gračanica Monastery--SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Houston, Texas

Why did you delete that category redirect?

It was fairly obvious that it would be needed, and it soon was [3].

I am worried that there may be more purging of useful category redirects :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think that this one would be needed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Brown

Hi,

Your move of Robert Brown (Scottish botanist from Montrose) to Robert Brown (botanist) with edit summary

"Wikipedia:Article titles#Conciseness - if in over a year no one even proposed an other potential article about a botanist by this name, there probably isn't one to require this level of disambigu"

seems to be in error given the existence of article Robert Brown (Scottish botanist from Caithness)

Hesperian 00:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I figured tht if there was no one important enough for eve an attmpt to change the redirect into a disambiguation or an other article, then aparently the extra info in the title was unnecessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You figured wrong. Are you going to fix your error? Hesperian 05:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only solution I've seen elsewhere for people with identical full names and basic proffession (excluding ancestor/descendant pairs) is to add year of birth to the dsambiguator. See, for example, the entries at Eli Cohen (disambiguation), where there are 2 politicians and 2 footballers; John Smith, where several entries have year disambiguators; and Yisrael Katz. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Brown (1773-1858), author abbreviation R.Br., is hugely more notable than other botanists by this name; a search for plant taxa in IPNI with this author abbreviation gives 11,294 results. A search for "R.Br.ter" (the "Scottish botanist from Caithness") gives 10. Robert Brown (1773-1858) also discovered Brownian motion. So it seems to me that he's clearly the primary target for "Robert Brown (botanist)" and others need to be distinguished from him. Hence I support Od Mishehu's move. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about you take the issue to a requested move request? I would also line to point out, in my defense, that I saw who moved the page originally; it was a user whose other actions are controvertial - and related to page name issues - Neelix. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Od Mishehu: if the "you" is meant to be me, I support the move you made, so I've no reason to take it to an RM. It's fine as it is. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "you" is Hesperian. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter: Notability only guides us on whether or not there is a primary topic. Once we've decided there isn't, and that disambiguation is necessary, we provide whatever disambiguation term is necessary to fully disambiguate the article title. The idea of disambiguating to an less-ambiguous-but-still-ambiguous title is, in my opinion, a very bad one; and, more to the point, it is something that is never done. Hesperian 00:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perth subcats

Hello. Not sure if you got my ping, but Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 1#Category: Perth, Western Australia was closed with a consensus against renaming. When you get a chance, could you please go through Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 1/Perth and remove the CfD notices? Apologies if you had already noticed it and were planning on getting around to it. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I asked someone else with AWB to do it. It would have been nice if you had answered my post here. Even saying that you wouldn't do it would have meant I could have asked someone else sooner. Jenks24 (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Addis Run for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Addis Run is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addis Run 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.
TopCipher 09:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topcipher (talk • contribs)

Category:Mac OS software

Hi, thanks for closing the CFD on Category:Mac OS software at the foot of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 12. It appears to me that after the renaming, the old name should be reinstated as a parent of Category:Classic Mac OS software and Category:macOS software. There are sub-cats which cover both, e.g. Category:Mac OS-only software. Therefore, you might wish to qualify your comment about speedy renaming: that should only be on offer for "Mac OS" categories which contain only Classic software.

I'm willing to work on the contents (moving some sub-cats of Category:Classic Mac OS software back up), but don't want to undermine your close.

For now, I'll de-list the category from WP:CFDW, leaving the existing links in place to the old category page (Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Mac_OS_software. – Fayenatic London 10:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the unblock forward sir/madam 146.247.83.91 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support proprietary software

@Od Mishehu, i am concerned about the black title on your user page, I dont think the "language" you used was appropriate, and also, please inform me more on the "Wikipedia Blackout". thanks! Tonicwatergaming (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC) A category you created is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_who_support_proprietary_software. User:Dorftrottel 16:37, January 15, 2008[reply]

Dutch general election, 2017

Pls put it on Main page, the Party of current PM won the elections. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't handle the main page. Please make the request at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Counter request

Would you be willing to spend a few hours on closing CFD discussions of January and first half of February? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Otter

Speciesbox only allows one authority.Naraht (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that I usualy notice and handle these correctly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I would have handled it if I'd gotten there before Frietjes did it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Main Page

Hey, you're an admin, right? Well, I figured I'd alert you about a situation on the Did you Know section on the main page. I'd estimate that about ~2 million people know that thrust into a difficult situation, Horney Dicks failed to satisfy. I suspect this as vandalism, though it's not listed on the edit history. It's location is the last did you know on the did you know section. Greasemann (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Greasemann[reply]

lowercase title on my talk page

About a month ago, you added the lowercase template to my talk page. I don't mind, but I wonder why you did that and left no other message. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that if you wantit on your user page, the same should apply to your talk page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vermont religious building and structure stubs has been nominated for discussion

Category:Vermont religious building and structure stubs, 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. Dawynn (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

image_width in taxoboxes

Thanks for all your work converting manual taxoboxes to automatic taxoboxes. Would you mind removing |image_width= when doing so? Use of that parameter is deprecated. It's rather pointless to specify a particular image size when readers are using a wide range of screen sizes to view the article. In cases where the image has unusual proportions (e.g. tall and narrow) and displays poorly at the default size, |image_upright= may be used instead of |image_width=. Plantdrew (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew:How would I calculate the value of |image_upright=? Please keep in mind that my level of recognizing asthetics is low, and that many of these edits are being done without meeven seeing the image. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image upright applies a multiplier to the default image size (220 pixels). So 0.5 is 110 pixels, 1.2 is 264. I'd say image width values from 200-250 are almost always just pointless tinkering with the default size. If image width is set well below 200, there might be a good reason for and it should perhaps be placed with image upright that approximates the width value (i.e., if width was 100, I'd go with upright 0.5, and for 150 I'd go with 0.7).

Really though, I'd be quite happy if you just removed instances with values between 200-250 (or with blank values). There are few enough widths outside that range that I can check the remainder fairly easy when they show up in this report. Plantdrew (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F---

The page F--- was re-created years after the RfD nom. I wonder whether you may undelete the previous revisions. --George Ho (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to do so, as the deleted revisions are completely irrelevant here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with the RfD results then? George Ho (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have been scanning old archives at WP:redirects for discussion/Log and re-creating some pages as redirects to different target and some others (and newer pages under different titles) as disambiguation pages. I left off at the end of November 2009. --George Ho (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dated

Template:Dated has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ppp ery 02:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]