User talk:PBS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Philip Baird Shearer)
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

Contents

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

Sorry for my late reply, I've been rather buried in work lately. EEng, I contacted PBS since he is already familiar with your case concerning the WP:MOS -pages, having issued you with Arbcom MOS discretionary sanctions in July 2015.[14] I can assure you, no other administrators have been contacted regarding the issue at hand.

A quick recap: What we are dealing with here, is that EEng removed my Talk Page comments — not only once[15] — but for now already twice.[16] Deleting other users comments per reasons, such as "You've made no substantive comments so there's no reason for you to object" or "Unfortunately there was no way for me to restore [...] his comments", is not acceptable.[17] Regarding the latter, of course there is a way to preserve other editors comments by simply copy-pasting the very paragraph, isn't there? User EEng is an experienced editor, and he knows that for sure. Instead, he's kept removing my Talk Page statements, and he even has even given rationale for doing so. That's a clear violation of WP:TALKNO.

If one takes a closer look at my edit,[18] I didn't refactor anybody's comments, but simply moved the most recent version of the discussion to a new sub-thread, "Version 3", while remaining the older proposal as it was first suggested, leaving it intact. It is crucial to leave the preceding comments / proposals as they were after they've already been replied to, since it makes it impossible for new Talk Page participants to follow up the discussion, and it might make the earlier comments look nonsensical as the original post were the comments were referring to have been altered.

Anyway, I am not going to restore the original proposals or comments, but I will leave an updated reply to the Talk Page, including both the original points that I made, as well as my opinions considering the later occurrences. After all, we are going through a major addition to WP:MOS — which has been openly reported by some users to be the first step to alter the MOS:LINK itself — and it's just no okay to remove other editors' comments in order to push one's own views. Indeed, my comments have been missing from the conversation ever since September 12th, and it's October 1st already (well, 4 hours missing still).

I'd like to suggest all participants to take a breath and continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Version3 (now the discussion seems to be scattered at User talk:EEng#Last Warning on Arbcom MOS discretionary sanctions and my Talk Page) Some of the most recent proposals actually look quite good, and I'm willing to continue the discussion there. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

TLDR, since it starts by repeating the same old nonsense. I do note that at the end you "suggest all participants take a breath and continue the discussion", but the discussion has been continuing for some time now, and will continue whether or not you are "willing" -- that's your business. The "scattered" discussion you refer to is simply the debris of your forum-shopping your nonsense procedural complaints to drive-by admin PBS [19].
It's worth pointing out that one of PBS' fellow admins has criticized, in the harshest terms, PBS' behavior in this matter (and, by implication, yours). [20] Please, quit prolonging both your own embarrassment and PBS'. EEng 20:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, the discussion has been going on for 29 days now, and I've replied already twice: 1) first one week after the beginning of the discussion, and 2) then seventeen days after the beginning of the discussion. Both times you deleted my comments within 2 hours, by explanations such as "You've made no substantive comments so there's no reason for you to object." That's an obvious breach of WP:TALKNO.
If five small paragraphs mean to you: "Too long, didn't read" (WP:IDHT), then "I'll rest my case, your honor" ;-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I reverted your comments because, in the same edit in which you made them, you deleted and refactored others' comments. One notices PBS has stopped defending you. Get a clue. EEng 15:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Ligny, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Louvain, Tilly and Mont-Saint-Jean (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) 10:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#In_ictu_oculi[edit]

I listed you as involved party, so I invite you to discussion about In ictu oculi at ArbCom. --George Ho (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

This request for arbitration has been declined by the Committee (and withdrawn by the filer). For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Karl Christian von Le Coq[edit]

Thanks for the Karl Christian Erdmann von Le Coq article. I just ran across it and added its link in the Battle of Courtrai (1814), Results section. Djmaschek (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

A concern[edit]

I have a concern about user:Aldebaran69. Since November 2014 other editors have posted concerns on Aldebaran69's talk page, which were summarily deleted.

  • @Eric: has posted 8 times concerning Aldebaran not using edit summaries. 8 October 2016
  • I have posted 3 times concerning Aldebaran adding unsourced/poorly sourced information, out-of-context information, unreliable sources.
  • You have posted 3 times concerning Aldebaran using unreliable sources. Aldebaran simply deleted your comment.

Here is an example of one of the articles that Aldebaran created:

What would you suggest? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I will add that I find Aldebaran69 to be an example of a large class of editors on en.wp who do whatever they feel like here, are uncommunicative, often have challenges with English fluency, and thereby generate a lot of work for others. Eric talk 02:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Ligny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Onoz (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) 11:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica[edit]

I saw your changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica; I agree it's overdue to be modernized, in case new interested users show up (such as the fairly new user Dicewitch). One change stood out: the recommendation to use <ref>Chisholm 1911, p. 914.<ref>. I thought we were pretty much standardized on {{sfn|Chisholm (or actual author)|1911|p=914}} which has several advantages. Did you intend the naked form?

Also, I now dislike Attribution as superfluous and too eye-catching, but I recognize that's a reversal from what I thought a couple of years ago. David Brooks (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Lose the condescension[edit]

If you want to fix problems, fine.
Otherwise, leave said problems for Derek to fix.
Derek is not an arsehole, and he does not editorialise.
Hugs and kisses, 207.35.33.162 (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Canadian ip address 207.35.33.162, I have no idea what you are talking about. -- PBS (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't either, but I don't have to in order to believe that the advice to "lost the condescension" is likely justified. EEng 22:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Concerning. Aldebaran69 edits and lack of editor interaction over those edits[edit]

All the complains are prior to the last talk topic where I was mentioned; since them I avoided to uses genealogical sites to any article...if was imperative to delete all the references with genealogical sites, please be free to do it. Thanks for your concern. Aldebaran69 (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

PBS, your patience is commendable. If nothing else, we're gaining new insights on the English language from this "native speaker". Eric talk 02:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Muppet[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Wikipedia:Muppet, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Muppet and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Muppet during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. CamelCase (Talk | Contribs) 04:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Uncited information added to Children of Palhavã[edit]

I added the information from the Portuguese and English wikipedia artices of King John V of Portugal (father of the Children of Palhavã). Aldebaran69 (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Aldebaran69: You should leave the post on your on talk page and answer it there. Eric talk 01:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi PBS.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Ill substitution[edit]

FYI, this is being substituted because of a template merge that had gained consensus at a TfD discussion. {{ill}} will be redirected to {{illm}} in the near future, so all transclusions of {{ill}} need to be altered to prevent them from becoming non-functional. This is standard procedure for handling merges. If you have any questions, let me know. ~ Rob13Talk 02:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I was disappointed to see that you ignored this message and continued reverting, despite the clear community consensus at this TfD. At some point, reverting edits made as a result of community consensus becomes disruptive, and I will have to take administrative action. This would be especially true if you were to edit through full protection, which is now placed on both Template:Ill and Template:Interlanguage link. See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you disagree with the formation of consensus at TfD. ~ Rob13Talk 20:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:OldStyleDate[edit]

At Talk:Old Style and New Style dates#Template:OldStyleDate, I have invited comments on a draft proposal to amend Template:OldStyleDate before I propose it formally at the template talk page. As you have a lot of experience in this historical era and contributed to the template talk page, I would particularly welcome your remarks there. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, PBS. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, PBS. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Malvern, Worcestershire[edit]

I have finally got round to listing it for review as a Featured Article. All help needed! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

AWB edits causing citation errors[edit]

Please log in to your AWB account to see the notifications for citation errors that I have reverted. You may want to revisit those articles with a revised script. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations for over 100000 edits[edit]

Bästa nyskrivna.svg 100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits on English wikipedia.The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts.Keep up the good work!

you can added this template to your user page.

Bästa nyskrivna.svg This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

- CAPTAIN RAJU () 12:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you see an archive.org redirect?[edit]

I populate {{EB1911}} url parameters by copy/pasting the URL from the page(s) in the archive.org streaming view. Today, that started going wrong. For example, the link in Lamprophyre (at the end) is https://archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabri16chisrich#page/135/mode/1up but after apparently trying to show that page it reverts to the front cover, https://archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabri16chisrich#page/n0/mode/1up. This is Win10, both Edge and IE. Do you see the same, or is it just me? Does archive.org have tech support? David Brooks (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Archduchess Maria Carolina of Austria (1748)[edit]

This article appears to have been copy and pasted from here. As stated earlier by Surtsicna , 22 July 2016, This person lived for a day three centuries ago, to which Aldebaran69, simply ignored this fact and copied said information from an unreliable website. I believe this article fails Wikipedia:NOTABILITY. How many more articles have been "created" from this website? How much longer will this type of "creation" continue? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Quota[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Quota requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. fgnievinski (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

House of Tudor[edit]

Could you please update and remove your request for references for each person on the family trees. They all have links to Wikipedia articles covering the personages, where the references are. I'm not sure what would be served by repeating them here. You would then need to put the same edit on every family tree listed in List of Family Trees. JMvanDijk (talk)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Mea cupla[edit]

Hi PBS, I did mean to do this revert, but not to do so without an edit summary. I agree that assassinations are always "selective", but precisely for that reason think Assassination is a poor target for the phrase. I'm not thrilled with either place, though. The phrase isn't used in either article. Just thought I'd give an explanation. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lord North (disambiguation)[edit]

A tag has been placed on Lord North (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. --Nevéselbert 23:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Lord North (disambiguation) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lord North (disambiguation) 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/Lord North (disambiguation) 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. --Nevéselbert 23:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature/sandbox[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature/sandbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. *Kat* (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

2005 or earlier[edit]

This is not exactly what you asked for but this old discussion shows one of the points that lead to a change in the approach we take, so I thought you might like to have a look. The talk of "internal sources" confused me originally; that was apparently wiki-jargon for "we don't need these sources on this page, because they're in the linked page anyway". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

A bastion is not the same as a bulwark, except in metaphor.[edit]

Both , like dozens, perhaps hundreds of other words, can be used figuratively for protection, but their core meanings are quite different. Anmccaff (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Your Teahouse response[edit]

I am not aware of anyone spelling "occasionally" as "occasionly" unless the second one is British English and you got them backwards.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed XnualaCJOldelpasoBerean HunterJimbo WalesAndrew cKaranacsModemacScott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

AWB edits[edit]

This AWB edit by User:PBS-AWB introduced a cite error.

This, this, this, and this (and many more) modified citation styles, which should not be done according to WP:CITEVAR. I'm fairly certain AWB should not be used to modify articles according to your personal preferences. Also, changing "Bibliography" sections to "Further reading" or "External links" can be confusing.

I would kindly ask you to review your changes before saving them, and, if possible, fix the things you've messed up. ~barakokula31 (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Greetings and...[edit]

Greetings PBS, and thanks for the ping re. the Guerrilla warfare... article I created. I reckon it's better to reply here, but just want to point out that while I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to your proposal regarding the convenience of WP:ENGVAR / MOS:TIES being applied, am slightly dismayed that you should consider that "this article uses American spelling" as that was certainly not my intention. The only instance I have found after a cursory review of the article is that doggone "center" in the first citation which I left in there intentionally 'cos of the source —a US literary review—. If you reckon it's better to modify it, notwithstanding its source, that's fine by me. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Joseph Beaume[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Joseph Beaume requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. PriceDL (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Mzilikazi1939 Talk[edit]

I'm afraid something has gone wrong with the change you made to my talk page. Archiving has not been automatic and items have been doubled, making the page unusable. I'd be grateful if you could sort it out for me. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx for sorting that out. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Checking a page[edit]

Hello User:PBS, I recently made an edit to the Maiorana article and hope you can have a look at it and make changes if needed, not sure if links are need in "surname" and "Norman French" for example, but if you can correct any mistake I made, please follow example of good surname pages please like: Evans (surname)Howard (surname), etc. Hope you can help, appreciate it--Theo Mandela (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Appolgy[edit]

Hello. I feel I must apologize again. You posted my last reply on a public page rather than on my own page: of course, this make me uncomfortable, because I speak of my health in that message. By this, it is easy to image that you attempt to make me feel uncomfortable. And so it did, because of my anxiety problems. If you can, I ask you to remove the message from me you pasted there. The formatting of references must never be more important than to treat people of respect, which I am sure you can agree. Please consider, that people on the internet is also people, like in real life; we do not get payed for the work we do here, we simply do what we can to our own ability, and we have no obligation to do more. Please understand, that I am fragile because of my anxiety problems, but I deserve to be treated with respect all the same. If you do not have the same conviction, then I would appreciate that you do not contact me again: this behavior has added to my anxiety problems. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason as to why I am "not helpful" is because I suffer from anxiety, and your lack of respect for that has given me a panic attack. You give the impression of being completely cold, disrespectful and full of contempt for that, if I read you correctly? Your contempt for people with anxiety problems are truly frightening. You truly give the impression to expect people to act like machines and your attitude are extremely cold and inconsiderate. You have given me a panic attack. I would appreciate an apology, but considering the attitude you give the impression to have against people with anxiety diagnoses, I could hardly expect one. I am deeply grateful If you leave me alone now, and advice you to consider your attitude toward people with psychiatric diagnosis.--Aciram (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Wavell[edit]

Where you have edited the Gazette with supp=y, it has generated Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGazette37609. Perhaps something else needs doing? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added KaranacsBerean HunterGoldenRingDlohcierekim
removed GdrTyreniusJYolkowskiLonghairMaster Thief GarrettAaron BrennemanLaser brainJzGDragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary[edit]

I've seen a few of these recently: [21] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect edit summary using AWB[edit]

I noticed this on my watchlist, yet the edit appears not to have made any change to the categories. DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

German Summer Time 1945[edit]

Hi, You asked here, if Germany was on Central European Summer Time 1945? Not exactly, but it used its own German Summer Time, in German: Deutsche Sommerzeit.
In the arcticle Bedingungslose Kapitulation der Wehrmacht: Die bedingungslose Kapitulation [concerning the (preliminary) surrender in Reims] trat für alle Fronten am 8. Mai um 23:01 Uhr mitteleuropäischer Zeit in KraftDa im Deutschen Reich die Sommerzeit galt, war der Waffenstillstand tatsächlich am 9. Mai ab 0:01 Uhr.
So, the German Summer Time was the +2 as Greenwich Mean Time(=UTC±00:00), +1 as the Central European Time, same as the British Double Summer Time and the Eastern European Time (there were not any Eastern European Summer Time yet in 1945) and -1 as the Moscow Time.
--2001:999:22:A253:4142:4499:5BE9:DBED (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

London Gazette AWB and ref[edit]

this edit added a space in a "ref name" which broke the reference. Can you please add an exception for AWB "minor tweaks" so that it avoids ref names please? Cheers, Woody (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the fix. Woody (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Operation Compass[edit]

I don't suppose you know why the article has Pages containing London Gazette template with deprecated parameters do you? I followed the link but all it has is something about postscript. Keith-264 (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, I can see what to do now. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

StringFunc[edit]

Thanks for pointing out the problem. I had created the module for sandbox testing of a template I was messing with, but apparently it has gotten picked up; (which I didn't check before making edits to it). I did fix the problem that you were seeing, and added some test cases on Module_talk:StringFunc; I am uncertain as to what the desired behavior should be on some of the test cases. Falconjh (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017[edit]

ANEWSicon.png

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug BellDennis BrownClpo13ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusBYandmanBjarki SOldakQuillShyamJondelWorm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive344#User:PBS reported by User:Display name 99 (Result: No violation) -- PBS (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Battles of Zürich[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you reverted two sets of changes I made to two articles on the First Battle of Zurich and Second Battle of Zurich. In those changes I both renamed the articles, to First Battle of Zürich and Second Battle of Zürich, and also corrected the spelling of all the references to the city of Zürich within the article. As the correct spelling for the city of Zürich as far as WP:EN was concerned was established in a series of RMs (and with much fire & noise) back in 2013 (see Talk:Zürich), I rather thought that this was, by now, an uncontroversial move. However, as it obviously isn't, I have now raised RMs for both articles. I have left the spelling of Zürich as Zurich in references to the names of the battles, but have rereverted the spelling where it is the city that is being talked about, as that is well established and (in the absense of yet another RM) there should be no doubt on this. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

wstitle parameter ordering[edit]

I noticed that earlier in the year you had made some (much needed) edits: [22], [23], that give some EB1911 wstitle parameters in "first middle last" order, instead of "last, first middle" as in the actual EB1911 title. The links work because Llewelynll had previously established redirects. Still, it doesn't look right to me; shouldn't the text of the link be the same as the article name? I fixed the Angerstein one before I realized it was you.

The EB9 links are a whole other matter; the Wikisource name is "F M L" although the article itself is "L, F M". David Brooks (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it (I think). I can fairly easily write code that will identify articles that you changed in that date range, have one of the 1911 templates, and have a wstitle without commas that indicates a WS redlink or redirect (phew). As to the ref/harvid things - that's lower on the priority list (it's not actually wrong, just silly) so we'll probably get to it some time in the 24th century. By the way, I prefer kudos. Kudzu doesn't grow here in the northeast anyway :-) David Brooks (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Cheers! How did you know it's my birthday? :-) David Brooks (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Anyway... I found 53 candidate articles from that date range (excluding the 3 I already fixed). Most of them are due to links to wikisource EB1911 redirects, but there are a few true redlinks. I can fix them some time (probably not this week), or leave them to you. Of course, the redirects are pretty low priority because they at least do the right thing. See my sandbox. David Brooks (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017[edit]

ANEWSicon.png

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Rayment etc[edit]

Hi PBS

I have just been looking again at Template:Rayment, and its associates {Rayment-bd}}, {{Rayment-bt}}, {{Rayment-hc}}, {{Rayment-hc-ie}}, {{Rayment-pc}}.

I see that it was you who tagged them in 2012 as self-published etc, e.g.[24].

I strongly disagree with that assessment. This isn't the place for the substantive discussion, but I was wondering if there was any discussion anywhere before you deprecated the templates? If so, please can you give me a link to it?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I just found it myself. Notification at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_116#Leigh_Rayment.27s_Peerage_Pages of substantive discussion at WT:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive_10#Leigh_Rayment.27s_Peerage_Pages, as well as a parallel discussion at Template talk:Rayment#Reliability.
I see no way that there was a consensus there to treat Rayment as unreliable. Imperfect, yes; unreliable, no.
I note too that neither discussion was formally closed.
Unless there is evidence of a consensus, I propose to remove the self-published and better source tags. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

copied from a message posted to mytalk[25]:

Copied from user talk:BrownHairedGirl#Template:Rayment

There is a discussion at Template talk:Rayment#Reliability which includes a link which I have updated to the archive: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 10#Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages that took place in 2012, and to which you contributed. That archived section includes a collapsed list of links to 16 previous discussions.

As the talk page of the template is fairly low volume, I would suggest that if you want to discuss it further that you start a new section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. If you do please put a see also at the top and link to the old archived discussion and please inform me about it.

You have just beaten me to it. But I will leave this here. -- PBS (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page "Unless there is evidence of a consensus, I propose to remove the self-published and better source tags." Please do not do that, but if you want to change them then get a consensus to do so by starting a conversation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. For example what is your evidence that the pages are not self-published? -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

PBS, you have just pissed me off replying on my talk when my editnotice specifically asks you not to do that, and a furthe little red box at the bottom of the page repeats the message ... and then by keeping on editing my talk, generating edit conflicts as I tried to close the discussion here. Per WP:MULTI, please keep discussions in one place ... and on my talk, pls respect my editnotice. </well-fed-up> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

PBS, the issue here is that the 2012 discussions reveal no consensus for the changes you made. If you want the templates to be tagged in that way, feel free to open a discussion in seek a consensus ... and this time, let someone uninvolved close it, rather than just acting unilaterally. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Your unwanted conversion of an RfC to an RM[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Batternut (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:ANI#Unwelcome conversion of RfC to RM among neutral adminsneutrals is leaning decidedly against you. More contributions may of course be made, or you may decide to appeal at arbcom or somewhere, but perhaps for now you might consider reverting your RfC->RM conversion edits. Batternut (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Nee inexperienced users don't talk about Arbcom appeals. Batternut is no rookie and knows exactly how he is trying to shoehorn a major change against all consensus via a two step process. Legacypac (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I am doubly flattered! First by PBS's "Machiavellian" suggestion, and now with LP's "no rookie"! My edit count is now 5,061, which seems like a ton to me, though nothing to PBS's, and probably your too LP. Listen people, I know you both have put in shed-loads of work on this ISIL article. I just think that, though PBS has done loads of good for the article, this move was wrong. Anyway, if I do ever kick off an RM which looks likely to succeed it will get a heap of good scrutiny as well as the noise - so it might as well be a sensible RM with sensible debate. Then if/when shot down, it can be followed with another moratorium. Anyway, what prompted me to write - everyone knows about arbcom because every election triggers a huge banner about it at the top of every article; there's no escaping it! Batternut (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
PBS is uninvolved in the ISIL topic. I'm still a major contributor to the topic and have a high degree of understanding of the issues. The editors that really understand the topic from working on it generally insist on keeping the existing name. Uninvolved editors see something in the news and jump to the idea we need a name change. Precedent shows your name change has been rejected many times. Given nothing has changed since the last round of failed renames, your latest efforts are disruptive and pointless. You also may not realize that this is really a proposal to rename several dozen pages and would involve thousands of edite to effect, if we are to remain internally consistent. Legacypac (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
"Nothing has changed" - I've refuted that already. 1000's of edits, that's an argument to be avoided, but don't worry, rest your poor smoking keyboard, I'll do it! Batternut (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Domino effect[edit]

 Berean pours PBS a really tall one
Bottoms up

Hey PBS, I saw your edit this morning in my watchlist and it jarred my memory and allowed me to make a connection leading to the filing of this SPI case. Bet you a beer that's him. ;)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, it's a really hot day so I've poured you a tall one.Face-wink.svg
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)