User talk:PBS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Noia 64 filesystems home blue.png
Crystal 128 kaddressbook.png
Crystal Clear app kaddressbook.png
Kpdf bookish.svg
Commons-logo-en.svg
Wikisource-logo.svg
Exquisite-kcontrol.png
Exquisite-network.png
Contributions
User Page

Talk Page

Notes

Library

Commons

Wikisource

Sandboxes

Userspace

Contributions

Explanation: Waterloo Campaign[edit]

RE: Waterloo Campaign: Waterloo to Paris (18–24 June). I fixed the Cambrai misspelling and noticed the old-fashioned language. It was my impression that copying word-for-word from a cited source was not supposed to be done, unless there were quotes around it. I was aware that Siborne's work was in the public domain, so I used a copypaste tag (not a copyvio). I looked up the pages you suggested. It appears that I was in error and you were right to revert the copypaste tag. I hope there are no hard feelings. Djmaschek (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to George Grote may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Grote's life has attracted a wide variety of biographical comment due to his strong views.{{efn|Charles Darwin remembered that he was pleased by the simplicity and absence of all pretension (Grote's ''manners'' cited in {{citation |editor-last=Barlow |editor-first=Nora |year=1958 |title=
  • * 1872 – ''Aristotle'' (ed. by [[Alexander Bain]] and [[George Croom Robertson]])<ref>Aristotle'' (ed. by [[Alexander Bain]] and [[George Croom Robertson]], volumes [https://archive.org/stream/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

blocked email?[edit]

Hi PBS, Asking you because the admin concerned is retired. I wonder if you might be able to help me. For quite a time now I have noticed other editors ignoring my emails. I have just now proved that my email is not functioning though I do receive continuous messages about changes to articles etc. All the right things are ticked in my preferences.
I have noticed that email can be blocked.
Please would you check to see that my email is not blocked. I very much hope this is for you the work of seconds. It is not urgently needed. With best regards, Eddaido (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Centralized ENGVAR, DATEVAR, CITEVAR discussion[edit]

This may be of interest, since you were involved in previous discussions these guideline and micro-consensuses erecting walls (e.g. 10 editors the other year): Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Cleaning up and normalizing MOS:ENGVAR, WP:CITEVAR, etc.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Theophrastus may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{Cquote|''With regard to the view that all things are for the sake of an end and nothing is in vain,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Romanos IV Diogenes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chronographia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 16:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wilfred Grenfell may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • sir-wilfred-grenfell |title=Sir Wilfred Grenfell |work=[The Canadian Medical Hall of Fame]]}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 template[edit]

Hi PBS - I do not know all of the technical issues involved, but some users are running into some difficulties with the template for EB1911. Here is some of the discussion we have had at the Help Desk Wikipedia:Help_desk#What_is_wrong_with_the_EB1911_template.3F.

Our problem is that template notices that had previously had blue links, or at least the title of the relevant article, now has a non-working red link for the particular article. Could you help us try to fix this?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sussex County Council listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sussex County Council. Since you had some involvement with the Sussex County Council redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


EB1911[edit]

OK, I've spent the day working on the EB1911 template and the wikisource version. I actually began by copy and pasteing text from the searchlight version

https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/bri/

under the impression that I would easily be able to link them to the appropriate templates (other John Schonfeld, a random article that I remembered had this problem with the template and the (accent)Eduard Lartet article, all the articles I worked on were in the X-Z field). As fate would have it, it turned out that the only articles that had template links were ones that were not listed on searchlight under Z.

https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/bri/browse.cgi?l=z

Which led me to one of the problems with that site - sometimes the articles are placed under the first letter of the given name ie, Aaron Burr is put under A rather than B. (This seems to be particularly true of Hispanic and German names.) Also articles for letters like Z apparently are not available and the entire section of articles starting with X is not available from the contents page (I had to use the search function).

All the articles that had a parallel with an EB1911 article X-Z have been linked up. In the majority of cases I had to create the article on wikisource using searchlight. In one instance it was another language confusion Xàtiva needed to be linked to

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/J%C3%A1tiva

which already existed. Another Zerhoun does have a listed EB1911 article under the name Zarhón and yet, I cannot find it on searchlight. These and the other remaining articles needed a template link illustrate the problems we have been having - there is no article in EB1911 for Zona Austral of "Southern Zone", it could be under the EB1911 article Chile, but I do not want to link it without being sure that that was were the text was from; the same with Karl Eduard Zachariae von Lingenthal and Alexander Ypsilantis, there are EB1911 for the formers father and the latters family, but I'm not sure if I should link to those pages. Also cannot find Zhetysu despite searching the dozen or so variant spellings; nada for Johann Zahn, Caroline Yale and Zapotec peoples.

For the new wikisource articles I have created, I only transferred over the text and the bare metadata predecessor, successor and wikipedia article. They probably need to be proofread and given whatever treatment the wikisource team usually gives to its articles. Also, I've been working on an EB1911 project with John Mark Ockerbloom on the Online books Page, this is our preliminary draft

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/metabook?id=britannica11

Hope this helps.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Current state of the YXZ articles that have EB1911 template and need links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_a_citation_from_the_1911_Encyclopaedia_Britannica_with_no_article_parameter?from=Xa

--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that it is you is flouting the rules by warring. CassiantoTalk 08:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Constantine X Doukas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chronographia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Encyclopedias and/or Reference Works[edit]

Would you like to support the creation of and/join the proposed Wikiproject for Encyclopedias and/or Reference Works?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lady Hester Stanhope may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • A romantic disappointment is said to have prompted her decision to go to a long sea voyage. (Her niece suspected she and [[John Moore (British Army officer)|Lieutenant-General Sir John Moore]]
  • Paule Henry-Bordeaux - The Circe of the Deserts London (1925(

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Imperial crown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Seal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

SEP & IEP[edit]

Hi PBS, Where can I find the templates for "Cite SEP" and "Cite IEP"? Thanks, BlueMist (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Cite_IEP has the list of parameters I was looking for. Thank you for your help! BlueMist (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laverna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aventine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir[edit]

Having read over your rationale, I feel the need to point out that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) is a naming convention for article titles; it has nothing to do with the way in which the first mention of the subject's name in the article's main body is done.

It is axiomatic that baronets' articles should have Sir in their article title whereas mere knights' articles' titles do not. However, I did not rename articles, but bolded the "Sir" in the first mention of their names in the body of the articles. As I have pointed out, the practice of bolding "Sir" at the first mention is endorsed by Wikipedia:MOSBIO. It is also the practice adhered to in the overwhelming majority of articles I have edited so far (~600 edits out of ~12,000 articles, which means that 95% of articles follow the practice), which is as strong a consensus as can be obtained on Wikipedia. Hence, I cannot accept your proposition that I should refrain from those edits, as you have cited a policy which does not actually touch on the issue at hand, whereas the Manual of Style, as well as consistent editing practice, endorse the bolding of the prefix in the body of the article.

I think the case is clear-cut enough. I will hold off from resuming the edits until tomorrow in order to allow you to look at the issue again. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask.

Atchom (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

I have initiated a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) and posted notices at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. I look forward to reading your input. Atchom (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lines of Torres Vedras, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British 6th Division, British 1st Division and Arruda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
3rd Grade!

You wonderful! That is awesome!

Bollins Cerrname (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
For showing great patience with a user and getting called a troll for it I award you the admin's barnstar. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 19:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For these. That's much improved. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Citation attribution has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Citation attribution, 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. DexDor (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maximilian I Joseph of Bavaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maria Anna of Bavaria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie poster[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie poster has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Problems at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style[edit]

Greetings, how are you PBS? I wonder if you still remember the case concerning user EEng at WP:MOSLINK in July 2015?[1] As a quick refresher, you reminded him of Arbcom MOS discretionary sanctions on 14 July 2015,[2] where he responded: "What a load of officious bullshit: PBS, your analysis is a triumph of superficial formalism over substance."[3] Well, he's on the loose again at recent discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposed revision: links within quotes and Wikipedia talk:Version 2 (currently waiting for SM to edit in his suggested changes), a section just below the former. Here's what happened:

  1. He refactored the original proposal made by the OP instead of making a new proposal.[4][5] This distorts the meaning of the comments left after the original proposal was made, and makes it hard to follow the course of discussion. As it's put by Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." I reverted back to the original version, but he restored the refactored material again.[6]
  2. He deleted my Talk Page comment, stating in his Edit Summary: "You've made no substantive comments so there's no reason for you to object." So there is a WP:MOS -level discussion, and he just deletes my comment? Even WP:TALKNO says clearly, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."

He has already been notified about the discretionary sanctions, but it seems his behaviour is just getting more aggressive. I hope you have time to take a look in this. Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

PBS: This is completely ridiculous. A half-dozen editors, including myself, Mitch Ames, Tony1, SMcCandlish, Nardog, Mclay1, and others had a discussion during which (a) new guideline text was proposed; (b) the text was discussed; and (c) in some cases, as part of that discussion, modifications were made to the proposed guideline text in situ (by that I mean changes were made in the proposed text on the talk page -- not in the live guideline). Several of the participants made such modifications, and others acknowledged and approved; no one objected, nor is there any reason to think they would object.
Suddenly J-G, who had not participated in the discussion other than to say it shouldn't be going on [7], removed others' edits to the proposed guideline [8], then added his own comments [9]. I reverted [10], explaining
Everyone participating so far is happy to develop the proposed text by editing in place. You've made no substantive comments so there's no reason for you to object. Add your comments, //referring to V2 as it now stands//, at the bottom, and we can start V3
Unfortunately there was no way for me to restore the edits by other editors that J-G removed without also removing his comments; as my edit summary explained, he was welcome of course to add his comments back, in the appropriate place and without removing others' work. He did nothing, and discussion continued.
Today, ten days later, J-G -- still having not participated at all other than the above -- again tried to impose his personal ideas about how the discussion should have proceeded [11], removing others' intervening comments and changes to the proposed text. I again reverted [12], explaining
the proposal was changed/in situ/by discussants w/their active participation.That may not be usual,but it's the way we chose to do it--not your place to come later&say discussion should have proceeded some other way.Add your comments at bottom if you wish
And so, after some forum-shopping by J-G, and an uninformed "Last Warning" threat by you on my talk page [13] here we are.
So it's J-G who's twice removed others' edits, and I, quite properly, reverted both times. Both times he could and should have simply readded his own comments without removing others' work, but he didn't do that, preferring just to try to force the discussion back to the last point which he, personally, considers valid. Note that many of the editors participating in the discussion which J-G has taken it upon himself to refactor are highly experienced, and one (SMcCandlish) is an admin, so J-G's idea that the discussion was some kind of grotesque mutant that needed surgery by him is unsupportable.
I suggest, if you don't want to take the time to understand what's really going on, that you butt out and let J-G can take his complaint to SMcCandlish, who is familiar with the situation and in a good position to tell him what's what. EEng 21:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm buried under real work lately, and all the MoS-related drama over the last month has been too tedious, so I'm taking a break from it. I would suggest that J-S re-insert his own comments (in original or modified form), without altering those of others. Whether the refactoring of the original proposal was a good idea or not, it's too late to revert it since many of us have been commenting on it as it is. It has seen various versions, which have moved well past what the original OP or EEng's changes to it were. If J-S wants to propose another version (I'm guessing one based on the OP's idea), no one's going to object. These two editors now and then get into squabbles like this (I've mediated between them before, also over MoS hair-splitting), but I think it's just a personality conflict; I don't think either of them is genuinely disruptive other than to each other's moods. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Don't waste your breath, SM. PBS is one of those admins who feels the important part of the job is issuing threats. He has more important things to do than figure out what is or was actually going on. 06:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)EEng

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, PBS. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)