Email this user

User talk:Wbm1058

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For discussion of RMCD bot edits, see User talk:RMCD bot.


Disambiguation link notifications[edit]

As these are generated by a bot, and I occasionally check or patrol the status of these, I moved them to a special archive: /Disambiguation link notifications. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Alan Wilson (Alan H. Wilson)[edit]

As this page is basically a list of articles, I've reverted you. You might want to consider creating an article on him over. Read our guidelines on biographies first. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'd have to find more information on him to start a new article myself. He should be mentioned in Semiconductor device#History of semiconductor device development or History of the transistor—its on my todo list. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Computer hardware[edit]

Please understand the difference between the general term hardware that – when it comes to electronics and computers – may refer to any electronic circuit, such as single-purpose circuits designed to fulfill one particular job, and between computer hardware, which is hardware that is part of a computer, a general-purpose (or special- but multiple-purpose) device that can be custom-programmed to fulfill different jobs. Do not simply change all instances of hardware to computer hardware. Thanks. Nageh (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion continued here. Sad to see another good editor retire. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Continued further at Talk:Computer/Archive 5#Definitions of computer vs. computer (disambiguation), and general-purpose computer vs. special-purpose computer. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Distribution America[edit]

Editing this article to meet Wikipedia standards and restoring it to complete Wikipedia's coverage of hardware retailers' cooperatives is on my to-do list. Help with pointing me to useful references would be appreciated. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Fecit, Pinxit[edit]


Your bot removed a valid although misplaced request. You can easily improve the project by creating the requested redirect. Thank you. (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. you can do this yourself. Just click on the red link to fecit, and enter the following text to create the redirect page: #REDIRECT [[Pinxit]] and then save the page. Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I just found that there is another way to do this. Go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects (WP:Redirects for creation redirects there). Either method is fine, but you might need to use the second method if you're not autoconfirmed. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but as an IP editor I can't create anything. I'll try the other route. Problem with such pages, in case you've never looked there, is that they have huge backlogs. Articles for creation sometimes has a backlog of over a thousand submissions. Odd that I couldn't find that page, though, so thank you--I knew it had to exist. (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


Thanks--that will work. See the frustrations of an IP editor? It takes two days for a simple redirect, and the ignorance of one editor can hold up the entire process. (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, so I helped you out. Maybe there should be an article on Signatures and inscriptions on art or something like that, which covers both, and any other ways that artists have signed their works over the ages. I added a ref. that covers the topic. If you stick with this, consider signing up for an account, that should ease these types of problems. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
For now, I would prefer not to. Odd--the German wiki has Signatur (kunst); the best we can do is a pop-culture thing like Signature artwork. Thanks again. (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I see, de:Signatur (Kunst)... de:Fecit and de:Pinxit both redirect there. Signature (fine art) and Signature (art) are red links. You're very welcome! – Wbm1058 (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD -- PBS (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been sleeping on this, and dreamed up some ideas which I'll post there in a while. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
That is very good news. Village pump proposal archive fairly quickly. If it does I'll copy the discussion somewhere else. I think the best place to do so is Wikipedia talk:Proposed mergers as that seems to be roughly the equivalent of RM. If I do I'll let you know. -- PBS (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I have posted some ideas of my own. -- PBS (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that you were involved with automation of requested moves. Sorry, I'm still tweaking things at RM (I'm a bit of a perfectionist). Eventually I'll get to it, but merges are a big bite to chew and I don't want to spread thin and lose too much focus. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Note to myself – look at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 67#WP:Requested mergeWbm1058 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you familiar with {{Requested move old}} (originally named {{Movereq old}})? As far as I can tell, it wasn't documented anywhere, until I just added it to WP:Template messages/Moving#After (potentially) controversial move requests are closed. Although it's been around since 24 December 2010‎, when Rich Farmbrough created it (what I've seen of his work is of highest technical quality), I haven't found any talk page discussion of it anywhere. But some editors have used it—it's transcluded on some 59 talk pages (the last two are my doing). Just amazed that I haven't noticed this template until today. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
How Rich announced his new template: diffWbm1058 (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC) stayed in the instructions until this edit. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
personally I don't see the point of Richard's template. I would suggest that automating the merge procedure would be a much better bang for the buck than further perfecting the automated RM procedure, particularly as the algorithms for mulit-move requests and proposed merges are similar and proposed merges are such a mess -- some of them have been around for may years. -- PBS (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
His template could be used to eliminate some redundancy and in my opinion is more elegant than harej's solution for archiving closed RMs. Eventually I would like any similar solutions for merges to be implemented consistently with the RM solutions. But, yes, further teaking here need not hold up some temporary solutions for merges, since that's such a mess... Wbm1058 (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I am missing knowledge of what harej's solution is, and why it is thought necessary. Surly to close a RM one just uses {{poll top}}. Why is anything else needed? -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually you should use the more specific {{subst:RM top}}. The old and new page names are included as parameters in {{requested move/dated}}. Closing instructions call for removal of {{requested move/dated}}. It needs to be removed so the bot doesn't pick it up, as the bot looks for transclusions of that template. So, to keep a record of the old and new page names in the archived section on the talk page, harej created {{subst:Requested move}}, which creates the {{requested move/dated}} template, and redundantly writes a list of old and new pages outside of the /dated template, so the list will still be there after /dated is removed. Now, if instead of removing it, we simply change its name to {{requested move old}}—or {{requested move/old}}—voila, now we don't need to write the redundant list outside the template. The redundancy can cause issues, when an editor corrects their typo or changes their mind about what the new name should be, they need to make the change in two places. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I also just observed that until June, 2011 User:RFC bot created an Automated list of proposed mergers at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log, which were nominated for deletion. Why did RFC bot stop creating these lists? – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
No idea I'll look into it. -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
RFC bot's last Proposed mergers list updates were on 29 August 2011. The Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log revision history shows that harej was having trouble getting the bot to "Behave, please.", and about this time he was turning over the bot to a new operator. Looks like a ball was dropped. I'll see if I can pick it up. –Wbm1058 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Bookmarking an old Feature request Pending Approval. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD. If I didn't keep branching off into other directions, I'd get to this sooner. So much to do. :} Wbm1058 (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 2#Automation of merge proposals -- PBS (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Well duh. The bot was working off of Category:Merge by month, which became a soft redirect to Category:Articles to be merged on 30 August 2011. No wonder the bot's last successful run was 29 August 2011... I patched the program with the new category name and it seems to be happy. Time to file the bot request for approval. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's an example of what I mean by "they need to make the change in two places": diff. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I am rather busy at the moment fixing hundreds of pages that use EB1911 as a source, so I have not been following the merge discussions for the last month or so. What is the state of play at the moment? Has the system been automated yet? -- PBS (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I see, {{EB1911}}, Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition – looks like a worthy project. Recently added to the public domain because it turned 100 yrs old? Merge bot is running every 24 hours, and awaiting approval. See Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#Tagged articles. Also on my plate is supporting multiple tags on a single talk page, see #Cannot get RMCD bot to trigger and Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive 25#Add section title for adding automatically. A solution here can be leveraged to merge proposals, as I'm sure there will be some proposing merge A into B, then below that someone else will propose A into C. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#Requests for assistance and feedback remains moribund, mostly supported by a single editor. Probably the next step is to change the current manual process there to another manual process in the form that is desired to be automated. In other words a process that is maintained manually in a similar manner to how requested moves is maintained manually when the RM or RMCD bot is down. Then I can work on automating that manual process. Should be easier to do here than at RM because the activity level is so low. Getting closer to that, hoping to get to it soon. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Warren (Porridge) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Warren (Porridge) 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/Warren (Porridge) 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 template from the top of the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge of Newtonian fluid and viscous stress tensor[edit]

Hi, apparently you have restored the merge tag in Newtonian fluid assuming that it had been deleted by accident. Actually the tag was deleted because it was posted 6 months ago, and since then there have been no arguments for the merge, but two against it. Besides the article has been edited heavily in the meantime, so it is dubious whether the editor who put the tag there would still want to do it.
That said, I must complain about the tag being placed on the article (and at the *top* of the article) rather than on the talk page. Please do not quote the manual of style. (Some years ago I looked closely at how MOS pages get created, and saw that they are generally the work of half a dozen people, who declare it "consensus" without any input from the other 10,000 editors.) There is an older fundamental and eminently sensible rule saying that messages to other editors should be placed on the talk page, never on the article itself. Article-side editorial tags were apparently first invented for biographies of living people, with the excuse that they were a warning to readers as well as to editors. But then other people started inventing other tags for all sort of banal editor-to-editor messages, and apparently felt that for being enclosed in a flashy frame those messages were somehow exempt from that fundamental rule. So now we have hundreds of millions of obnoxious tags that hog the articles for years on end, thanks to a few dozen editors who enjoy creating tags and pasting them by the thousands, but never take the time to fix the articles or discuss them in the talk page. Of course, those are the same editors who write the Manual pages that "legalize" the use of such article-side tags, "by consensus"...
Sigh. Can't people see how ridiculous and yucky Wikipedia articles look with those post-its all over the place? Can't people see what will inevitably happen when editors can tag an article with a few mouse clicks, but it takes at least half an hour of work to remove a tag?
Sorry for the rant but I had to try. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding permalinks to block log entries for 3RR[edit]

Discussions are consolidated at /Adding permalinks to block log entries. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Deep gratitude[edit]

A big thank you for your help to clear Category:Cross-namespace redirects into its subcats. Really can't thank you enough! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 03:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. One final push to clear most of the rest, and then it will be time to take a break. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Break? Whassat?! Face-wink.svg – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi Wbm1058,

You asked a while ago about how many editors were using VisualEditor each month, rather than the each-day stats that are given on the dashboard. It appears that the most recent answer is that a bit under 1800 editors here at the English Wikipedia saved an edit with VisualEditor during the month of June. This represents about 5% of the people who have (ever) opted in to VisualEditor (most of whom are not currently active editors) and almost 1.5% of all registered editors who made any edit at all last month.

@Risker:, you might be interested in these numbers, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Polygraph examiner[edit]

Sorry - I didn't mean to be redirecting articles even while you were in the process of providing links to them! 0;-D Actually it was one of your links that called my attention to that unsourced stub. As you saw, I put some sourced information about polygraph examiners into the Polygraph article before redirecting it there. Sounds like you are OK with that? --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, I just tagged it with template:R with possibilities. Someone could expand it into a more detailed and sourced article about the profession. I was interested in the idea that polygraph examiner "is a lay term for the forensic psychophysiologist". If that could be confirmed, it would be nice to add that link back to the polygraph article, if the profession view themselves as forensic psychophysiologists. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I don't find that term at the APA website;[1] I wonder who uses it? --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm: – but the Marine Corp lends some support to this: Marine Corps Enlisted Job Descriptions: MOS 5822 -- Forensic Psycho-physiologist (Polygraph Examiner)Wbm1058 (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk page errors[edit]

Thanks for finding the Talk page errors you reported at the OTRS Noticeboard. As you guessed, most are OTRS issues; I've begun slogging through them. In many cases, this is a boring technical issues, a new agent used the image template when the text template should have been used. It isn't as simple as changing the template, one has to read the OTRS ticket and track down the text in question, so it is manual, not a task for a bot. I'm glad this was uncovered, because in at least two situations, the permission was for an image, and because the tag was on the talk page, not the image, so the images were deleted. I've recovered ten images that have been or can be restored to articles, so you deserve credit for helping with that.

If I've buttered you up enough, you mentioned that you do patrol for these types of errors, so I wanted to report that at least 4 are something other than OTRS. My plan is to make a formal list, maybe in a subpage, of items I have not handled. Some will be OTRS, and the OTRS team will figure out what to do, but some are not. Would you be willing to take a look at:

And see if they are ones you can handle?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, a couple of those titles are familiar to me; as I said there were a few there before the OTRS issues appeared. I'll get to them eventually. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
An interesting conversation at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard #Errors requiring attention, where I reported this issue. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, it wasn't always this easy to find {{error}}s to fix this way. See Template talk:Requested move #template:error for discussion of the work I did to make this possible. It's nice to see my efforts paying off! Wbm1058 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I just fixed Talk:Misha B/Archive 2 and Talk:Total Siyapaa/Archive 1. The other two have already been addressed. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: 80 left, Get 'em while they're hot! ;D – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks:) I'm working on a summary of what is left, so now I can skip one category, the non-OTRS issues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I found one more:

Thanks, there's light at the end of the tunnel. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Stuck at 39 left? Wbm1058 (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Let's not say "stuck" but "paused". I have an external summary in progress of the remaining ones. Not surprising, the low-hanging fruit is gone, and the remaining ones are a bit more difficult. I need to finish my summary, identify a game plan for the various categories of open items, and post it. Life intervened, and frankly, it dropped off my radar. thanks for reminding me, I'll try to return to it soon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate template parameters[edit]

Your edits reverted my fix to remove duplicate parameters and these files will soon be placed in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. I'm not watching them, nor am I watching this page, so I leave it to you to fix the issues. --  Gadget850 talk 22:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gadget850: Right, already taken care of. See Template talk:Non-free use rationale logo#Override fields. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Headings of Requested move[edit]

Why including headings as part of a template? There is already a subject/headline box. --George Ho (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

For editor convenience. See the discussion Here. This ensures that section headers are unique, i.e., so there will not be two sections on the same talk page both titled "Requested move". The {{Requested move}} documentation explains how customized section headers can still be used, see Template:Requested move § Custom header. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I've found (err, a beta version of my bot has found) three open RM's which are malformed, e.g., this one. The bot is not picking up the section links for these. It doesn't work when there are comments inserted between the section header and the RM template. Having the template write the section header, at least initially ensures that doesn't happen. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I just noticed this comment, which was posted a few days later, which I overlooked before: "It's nice that there is a default header with such precision, but if the editor proposes the change using the "new section" button and has to leave the section header blank, it's unfortunate that we end up having a new requested move section with no edit summary; there's no quick way for editors with the page on their watchlists to figure out that a move was requested. Would there be a way to check for the bot to check for new move requests that have no edit summaries and add some sort of dummy edit to notify editors that a move discussion is what was added to the page?" I'm chewing on what the best way to do this is. The contested technical requests set up by {{RMassist}} automatically populate the edit summary, but that only works when clicking on a link. Sure would be nice if there was a way to populate edit summaries by just using a template. But a followup bot edit is a good idea too. – Wbm1058 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Proposed merge template[edit]

Why do you keep removing a standard redirect and replacing it with a ridiculous, non-standard template message? What policy or guideline allows you to do this? I've reverted you until I hear a rational reason for this bizarre edit. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The template you are looking for is called {{Requested merge}}. Please use it. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@Viriditas: I thought I made it more clear by starting a template documentation page. See #Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD. It's a long-term project, maybe I'll make some progress on it in 2015. There are already 15 other redirects to {{Merge}}, and the Merge bot program has all of them hard-coded, but "Proposed merge" is not in its list. This means that anyone who uses that alias won't find their proposals in the bot's lists. I'd rather not use the "requested" name which is for moves, as the processes may not end up being identical, so the same name may be misleading. This would be designed to be a replacement for Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, or an automated generation of that page. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused why you and others create unique process requests instead of following a simple, logical consistency across the project. If an editor wants to request something then it should be simple to find the appropriate template by typing it in the search field. Instead, we see that a "request" or a "proposal" for anything has a different naming convention. This makes no sense. Second, there is no accepted usage of reserving a template by typing "This template is reserved for future use" where the redirect should go. None. Only admins can reserve (or rather, "protect') a title. Third, you have many options open to you, all of which I'm sure you know about, from using a sandbox template (outlined at Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases) to using a new template, to making a simple request for deletion of the redirect so you can recreate it. I'm frankly confused why you would go down a route not reflected by our best practices. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


I undid your edits to Template:Disputed title. I don't think they were a good idea. If you think they are, please take it to the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I then saw that you tried to do some revision of title templates, and reverted all of it. I don't know where to discuss it. You can start here, perhaps, or let me know if you have a suggestion where else to discuss this. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

edit conflictI see it has something to do with Template:Topic links. I noticed you made over 10 edits to that template. And the same at Template:Cleanup-articletitle. You really shouldn't make experimental edits on "live" templates. Please use sandboxes for that purpose. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Please tell me what you don't like about my edits. "Not a good idea" doesn't really tell me anything. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you tell me what your idea is? What is it you were trying to accomplish? Debresser (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
That's just it. You don't even understand what I was doing. So, why can't you ask first, before reverting. Look at Category:Wikipedia title cleanup. Does that make it clear? Wbm1058 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. It is not as though I didn't have a clue. I did get the general drift. Now that you have explained yourself, let's discuss this. First of all, was this idea discussed anywhere? Because if so, I missed it. As for the technical things. I disagree with your idea to sift out main article space only. Why would you do that? Don't other namespaces have title issues as well? And the idea of sorting into 4 categories, however orderly it may be, does not seem to be a major improvement to me, especially in view of the relatively low number of pages (articles) in these categories. Which brings me back to the question if this is all your idea, or if this was discussed? Because if it wasn't, then I for one don't think we should implement this. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No not discussed, I was just being bold. It was just an idea I had after I discovered {{Category anchor}}. I didn't really expect this to be controversial. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised anyone even noticed.
  • You must not be familiar with Category:Wikipedia title cleanup, because it has always been for mainspace only. My edits today didn't change that (well, it did change temporarily until I fixed it with {{category other}}). You get a lot of user space junk otherwise. I don't want to go fixing user space. The four templates that populate this cat are only designed to be used on articles.
  • Other namespaces have different venues, such as "categories for discussion"
  • I thought it would be nice to easily see on the category page which templates were being used. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Now you can see what it looked like before. It just shows mainspace pages. You can't tell which template put a page in the category. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I used to be active in maintenance templates, standardizing them, so many of them are still on my watchlist. That is how I noticed.
You are right, that non-articles are not supposed to be tagged with these templates (and none are, presently). But to sift them out from categorization is counterproductive. If the will appear in the list at Category:Wikipedia title cleanup, they will stand out, and will likely be dealt with.
I personally do like the idea of sorting the pages into 4 groups, the way you did. I do not think it is necessary, in view of the small number of articles tagged with these 4 templates. A more serious problem I have with it, is that this is not the way to do this. If it is important to separate them, then make separate category pages for each template. Making such a division inside one category page, is ignoring the idea of categories a little. In any case, perhaps raise the idea on some forum, like the WP:Village pump, and see what other editors think. I'd appreciate a notification if you do. Debresser (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Categories using Template:Category anchor[edit]

59 total categories transclude {{Category anchor}}, as of 3 January 2015
61 total categories transclude {{Category anchor}}, as of 27 July 2015

Auto assessment categories[edit]

Work queues[edit]



Proposed new use[edit]

Updated Wbm1058 (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: After seven months, I decided to do something to clear this item off of my to-do list. I created Category:Wikipedia title cleanup (sorted by template), leaving the original Category:Wikipedia title cleanup unchanged. I see no harm in that, as both cats will always have the same members, as they are automatically populated by the four templates. This way readers and editors can see these articles sorted either conventionally or by sort keys. I suppose if you still have any concerns with this, the appropriate venue for discussion about my new sort-key version of the category would be WP:CfD. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Module documentation and test cases[edit]

There's really no point to having test cases for data modules, since there's no code to test. Also, doc pages that contain a #invoke of the module itself exist so that TemplateSandbox can be used to preview changes of the module. It's fine to add "real" documentation, but the #invoke must not be disabled or removed when doing so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Module:Syrian Civil War map is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded.
I edited Module:Syrian Civil War map/doc, and created Module:Syrian Civil War map/testcases.
Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War used to transclude {{Syrian Civil War detailed map}}, until substituted.
Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map loads Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map.
Template:Syrian Civil War map (created 21 February 2015‎) . . . Wbm1058 (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your work at the backlog of tfd/h[edit]

Hi Wbm1058. Thank you for your work at WP:TFD/H. I very much appreciate it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheyenne Mountain (disambiguation)[edit]

Hi there,

It's improper use of a disambiguation page to have all the "namesakes" on the page. But I did put a see also with an Template:Intitle link for Cheyenne Mountain. If you'd like, we can take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation.

Really, there shouldn't even be a disamibiguation page for Cheyenne Mountain - there's one Cheyenne Mountain - and people referring to NORAD or the nuclear bunker call it NORAD, not Cheyenne Mountain.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Please bear with me, and my proposal will become more clear. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, hanging in to see where it goes.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, as an FYI, I did some clean-up on the page, grouped the items, and corrected some of the information on the page... and I just posted an item at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Two Colorado disambiguation pages.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

sost disambiguation[edit]

I saw you reverted the disambiguation for Sost change that I made. I looked up page view stats to see which page is the primary topic. Page view stats say that Sclerostin (SOST) got about triple the traffic as Sust (Sost, Pakistan) in the last 90 days. Here are the 30- and 90-day page views of all pages noted on the Sost disambiguation page:

  • Sclerostin (SOST), 1629 views in the last 30 days, 4725 in the last 90 days
  • SOST (RMS Titanic Inc), 642, 1810
  • Sust (Sost, Pakistan), 450, 1565
  • SOST (bullet), 111, 304
  • Sost (disambiguation), 71, 250
  • Sost, Hautes Pyrenees, 47, 227
  • Sost, Afghanistan, 24, 87

It looks like the primary topic for Sost is Sclerostin. What you do you think? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for raising the issue. I've been enjoying looking at the pictures and watching youtube videos of the highest border crossing in the world (between Pakistan and China). Just spectacular. It is really hard for me to tell whether that town is more commonly called Sost or Sust as you can find road sign pictures with both an "o" and a "u". Content forks were started independently at both titles. The pages that link to Sost will need to be fixed if its primary topic status changes. SOST gene seems like a natural disambiguator for Sclerostin, and since it's all-caps it may not be easily confused. I wouldn't put much weight in page views for this case. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Unicode blocks[edit]

I just caught your addition to the Syriac unicode block article. I think this is fine, especially since it looks like you've been cleaning out the list of Unicode characters article at the same time, but I think I'd put the "list" format under the standard 16/row unicode block template, since the block template kind of functions as an addendum to the lede, while the list could theoretically be expanded to encompass all kinds of information. VanIsaacWScont 23:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vanisaac: Hi. I did Syriac (Unicode block) that way, as well as some others, because I was just following the pattern established by Basic Latin (Unicode block) and Latin-1 Supplement (Unicode block). I haven't seen any pages which show both, that show the standard 16/row unicode block template first, but your rationale makes sense to me. Feel free to flip them around if you like. Best, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The New Science[edit]

I noticed your edit to "History of Science" that undid mine. I was slightly wrong; "New Science" does redirect to "The New Science". However, "New science" does not. That's what I was trying to refer to. I'm going to redo my edit so that it is correct. I would appreciate it if you contacted me before editing that part further. (Decentman12 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC))

Oops, usually I catch those. Thanks for getting it right. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


As you may have seen, I posted a request for help at WP:VPT regarding your comments on editing a protected talk page. Jackmcbarn says that he's resolved the situation. Would you mind attempting to submit an edit request for a protected talk page? As an admin, I can't test it, since it will just let me edit the page; I'd appreciate hearing whether the new feature does what you were hoping it would. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that did the trick. Thanks! Wbm1058 (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Invalid redirects[edit]

Category:Invalid redirects, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Unicode characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page (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) 09:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Nobel Peace Prize hatnote[edit]

Turns out Peace Prize with capitals still points to the Nobel Peace Prize article, while Peace prize without the cap points at the list. I am retargeting the first redirect. Apologies for the interference. -- saberwyn 21:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Another Inconsistent similar redirect that I missed, like The New Science above. Thanks for making them consistent. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Bendson Louima v. Dr. Bedson Louima[edit]

Hi there, so sorry for having cut and pasted the entry. I did it in good faith and did not know of the move feature. I will use it in similar cases in the future. Please let me know what the next step is that is expected of me. I'm assuming you are going to reinstate the initial entry and use the move feature to correct the misspelling in the first name? --Aliceba (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. We're waiting for an administrator to fix it. See the notice I posted at the top of Dr. Bendson Louima. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


The list at WP:RMTR now does not seem to have any 'discuss' links. I only see the 'move' link there. Was this intentional? Perhaps the vanishing of 'discuss' was an unintended side effect of your recent change. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Ed. Right, that's not how I intended it to work. That's the "require opt-in", version, and I intended to put up the "require opt-out" version. I swear I tested this, and it was working OK in the sandbox. I'll see if I can get it working as I intended. Sorry, I should have been paying closer attention after implementation. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
EdJohnston, OK, I think I fixed it now. I just observed that Anthony used the cut-paste method when the link wasn't there, rather than asking me about it. The idea is that you're not supposed to do that if the link isn't there. Do you think I should add a more explicit note to that effect in the what I expect will be, rare case when the user actually sets the "discuss" parameter to NO?
See my test here. The second line is the live version, and the third is the sandbox version. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The first of these three is what we will be seeing in the released version? I predict that that the 'discuss=no' option may hardly ever be used. It is hard to imagine an actual person wanting their move to be performed, willing to list it at RMTR, and unwilling to participate in a full discussion. I would be against adding more software support for such an implausible option. If you want to preserve this example as a test case somewhere, it would be useful to display somewhere the unexpanded source showing what parameters were passed to RMassist. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
EdJohnston, This 'discuss=no' option, which I agree will hardly ever be used, is my response/accommodation based on the discussion at WT:RM#Automated mishandling of a request and my followup in the next section WT:RM#Smoothing the transition from technical to contested requests. I'm not sure how I should proceed. I haven't gotten feedback from anyone else on that talk page. The lack of willingness to compromise has turned this into a big time sink for me, and I'm getting frustrated with that. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Note that this parameter was added by my last edit, and is documented at Template:RMassist. If I remove it then we still need to update the documentation and instructions on the new procedure. I'm not sure I can boldly do that given the objections raised on the talk page. Not sure if we need to start an RfC, or do it some other way. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
One approach is to interpret that discussion as No consensus for a change in RMassist. Then ask anyone not happy with the situation to open an RfC. So far as I can tell, only a single editor was unhappy with the status quo. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I just closed one technical move and it seemed to work. Hope you will be keeping this version of the template for a while :-). EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


A gummi bear holding a sign that says "Thank you"
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Wbm1058,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletterTranslate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Emergency repair needed for Template:Rfd2, if you can do it...[edit]

Hey Wbm1058, I was doing some edits on Template:Rfd2 that I realized broke the template, but then realized that the fix might be something similar to what you did with Template:RMassist to forward the editor to the subpage in the event that they are on Wikipedia:Requested moves when they click on the link in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. When I performed this edit, I essentially broke the edit notices if the links are clicked on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion since {{FULLPAGENAME}} pulls the name of the page it was clicked, even if it is clicked from a transcluded page (which I didn't realize until now.) Is there a way that you might know to have {{FULLPAGENAME}} pull/return the name of the subpage (the page which the link is actually located) in the event the link is present on a page transclusion (such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion)? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Steel1943 (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}FULLPAGENAME }} | Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests | <we're on the subpage, do this> | <we're NOT on the subpage, do this>
since in your application, I believe that the subpage name changes when it's relisted:
{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}FULLPAGENAME }} | Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | <we're on the main page, do this> | <we're on another page (likely a subpage), do this>
Hope that helps. I'm not that familiar with the internal workings of Rfd, so would need to study it more to give you a more specific suggestion. Maybe you can play with it in the template sandbox. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I vaguely understand what has to be done, but not sure if I am capable of implementing it without breaking something more. I guess the way to resolve this the best is if there is a magic word or parser function that runs a check if the page is a subpage or not. Then, that magic word or parser function (I get all of these terms mixed up sometimes) would replace the text "Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests" in your first example. Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Steel1943: OK, I have a test version in the sandbox. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 9 has my "mechanical hardware" test. It is transcluding the "keep/retarget/delete" links as desired. The main page Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion shows "[ Closure: (@subpage) ]" instead. With requested moves, the subpage is always the same so RMassist just hardcodes the link to that. Here the link changes every day, so the trick is to figure out the name of the subpage that's transcluded on that section of the main page. I'm not clear on what the problem is that you're trying to solve. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Wbm1058, if your sandbox does what I think it does, it solves the problem. The problem I am trying to solve is: After my edits, those "keep/retarget/delete" links produced an innacurrate link when clicked on their transclusion listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Since {{FULLPAGENAME}} returns the page name that the reader is viewing, if the reader is viewing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, if the link is clicked, then the edit notice generated will appear as "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#PAGENAME closed as ..." instead of "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/YYYY MMMM DD closed as ..." (which is how the edit notice will appear if the link is clicked on the subpage/page that is being transcluded), which break links in the generated edit notices. So, yeah, if what you did to the sandbox does what I think it does, you just fixed the problem, and much thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I thought that the re-listings were kept on the same page. I see how that could make the page grow too large, and indeed recall it bumping into the transclusion limit sometimes. So, it makes sense to move re-listings to the relist date, and then transcluding prevents the need for manually updating those edit-summary links. However, now it's a little harder to get to the subpages without those direct links to them. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


Can I delete a page if it was created in my likeness?!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Actuallyjenniferbanko (talkcontribs) 13:37, 11 April 2015

@Actuallyjenniferbanko: Hi, I hear you. I don't know why you chose me, but I'm happy to help. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Actuallyjenniferbanko: An administrator has changed the name of your bio on Wikipedia. is one of the sources listed for the article. It appears to be another site with user-generated content, so you will need to make a separate request for name change on that site as well. If you want your page deleted entirely, rather than just the name changed, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I can't assure that your request will be honored, as the decision will likely hinge on whether you are considered to be WP:notable. However, user-generated content pages like are not WP:reliable sources. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


Your comments about the state of accuracy in the world on Jimbo's talk page are very interesting. I would like to explore this topic further. I'm particularly fond of your statement, "Society as a whole perhaps doesn't value accuracy as much as it should, and indeed Wikipedia editors should strive for a higher level of accuracy." Heck, I think some kind of variation on this should be our guiding principle. You've really nailed something here, and I think it's worth pursuing. One counterargument to pursuing accuracy, however, might attempt to appeal to the blind men and an elephant analogy. How would you respond to this? Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The best we can do is report the truth as best as we know it, and be open-minded to new information that can give us a better vision of the truth. As more "parts of the elephant" become known to us, the more accurate our "truth" becomes. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you help with bot settings for a multiple page move?[edit]

Its at Talk:List of longest bridges above water in India and involves just under 300 pages. Sorry, I thought that this fitted the parameters that were set last time. GregKaye 16:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) If I recall, when this was done previously, the bot's limit was upgraded to 100 requests? Steel1943 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You mean Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world... Talk:List of longest bridges above water in India just has nine items. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The limit was last raised from 150 to 200. I just bumped it to 300, for the update which will run in a couple of minutes... Wbm1058 (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


This request is in reference to the NCR logo displayed on the NCR Corporation page: I submitted something on that page put have not heard back.

I work for NCR and manage We use our logo as a "featured" thumbnail as a default when there is no featured image loaded. You can find it utilized in many instances starting here: The direct link to the logo file: Can we utilize this in place of the existing (and old) logo, please? Pcullinn1 (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know if you are able to assist. Thank you.Pcullinn1 (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Wbm1058 (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of talk page comments[edit]

I'm not objecting to your deletion of my comments on User talk:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger, I'm just confused because you said you were acting on the wishes of the editor. Do you know each other? Or did you encounter each other on IRC? Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know them, nor have I chatted with them on IRC. See this thread. That's where I read their request. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Wbm1058. I can see that my unasked-for-advice was also unwanted. Liz Read! Talk! 13:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi! Sorry I reverted your addition of the see-also Proclin link to Sigma-Aldrich. Didn't realize the Proclin page had so little love. I'll poke around and see if I can dig up some other info to beef up the Proclin page or to connect it to other things. My dream is that all of the chemicals like this would have enough info to be their own useful pages. We'll see though. Lots to do. If there's not much out there we can nominate for deletion. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!! Ajpolino (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

deproded Funerals and Fly Fishing[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Funerals and Fly Fishing, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Coolabahapple (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, it's nice to see that I "prod"ded an editor into working on it! Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Mergers[edit]

Since you run MergeBot and RMCDBot, I was wondering, if it were possible to create an auto generated list like WP:RM has but for WP:PM, that links to the centralized discussion area, and lists the topics to be merged (from/to/with) ? As the current MergeBot already generates arrows indicated from/to/with, it would seem a modification of template:requested move/dated/multi would do to handle such an automated listing based on a standardized talk section header.

-- (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

See § Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD above. Still on my back-burner. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft talk:Testing[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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Draft talk:Testing, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

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 "Click here to 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. Stefan2 (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Announcing requested moves[edit]

FYI, the creation of a new template has been proposed at Wikipedia:Requested templates#Requesting Assistance Building a template related to Requested Moves after discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Increasing participation in RM discussions. This would allow open move discussions to be noticed on WikiProject talk pages. As a template creator, you might have some ideas on how to do this. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. I think maybe I can enhance RMCD bot to do this. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Vanessa Ferlito's date of birth[edit]

Hello, I work with Ms. Ferlito. I would like to know who you are and why you keep changing her information?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman1382 (talkcontribs) 14:21, 26 May 2015

@Roman1382: Please read Talk:Vanessa Ferlito. Perhaps we should just remove her birth date, since this is apparently disputed. IMDB says 1977. But I do see now that TV guide says 1980. It would help if you provided sources. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

IMDB did state 1980 but it was changed once the Wikipedia page was altered. The New York Magazine article from the 90's was mistaken as well. As her representatives, we will be keeping a closer eye on these sites and take it from here. Thank you and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman1382 (talkcontribs) 16:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia Abuse by Editor Taeyebaar[edit]

You were named in a list of edits which were unnaturally reverted. Just FYI!

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sean Stephens (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

My response is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia Abuse by Editor Taeyebaar. I see that you've now been blocked as a sockpuppet. Oh, my. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The Simpsons - include size problem[edit]

Could you please outline and explain the include size problem at WT:TV. Your solution is not at all ideal as it contains redundant text (most notably the episode summaries) and will result in errors over time due to now having two episode lists for each season (this is one of the main reasons we transclude!). It's also defeating the purpose of splitting into individual seasons. However, the problem is obviously very real and will likely appear at other pages, so project-wide understanding is required. We may even be able to address this in MOS:TV or provide some other resolution that is more ideal. --AussieLegend () 10:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Disambiguation links[edit]

Saw your post (thanks). Not sure if you're aware of this but I find the following added to your css file helpful. It highlights all disambiguation links with a bright yellow background so they're easy to spot and fix.

A.disambiguation   { background-color:#ffff88; }
A.intentional-disambiguation   { background-color:#ffffcc; }

--NeilN talk to me 17:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, this also has to go in your js:

importScript('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js]]

--NeilN talk to me 17:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I see that you import 'User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js' in User:NeilN/monobook.js, but not in User:NeilN/vector.js, and User:Anomie/linkclassifier says Note that this script has only been extensively tested on Monobook. I have only used the default Vector skin, and have never tried MonoBook. The link classifier doesn't seem to work in Vector skin. Do you switch skins often, depending on what you're working on? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks like I missed a line. Please look at my vector.js and vector.css now. I only use Monobook (it's what I'm used to) but when I switched to Vector the Alan Wilson link at the top of this page was highlighted. --NeilN talk to me 18:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: Thanks. I've got it working now. Though I found that creating User:Wbm1058/vector.css wasn't really necessary. I assume that's for overriding the defaults specified in User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css, but since the background colors spec'd in each are the same, I saw no difference after installing my vector.css. Alan Wilson (disambiguation) indicates "intentional dab" by turning green with a red border. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I think I really understand how it works now. Either I can importStylesheet User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css in my User:Wbm1058/vector.js, in which case User:Wbm1058/vector.css isn't needed or used, *or* omit importStylesheet from my User:Wbm1058/vector.js, in which case I need to specify my custom Stylesheet in User:Wbm1058/vector.css. This is a very cool feature! Wbm1058 (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your work with RMCD bot. The recent break has at least served to remind us of just how useful it is and how valuable your maintenance of it is. Best wishes, DrKiernan (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

+1. Jenks24 (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


You must understand this issue, because you closed a related move discussion with a very thorough rationale on June 7. Does this knowledge of the dispute also give you any insight into Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mattnad reported by User:BoboMeowCat (Result: )? It looks like the BLP issues needs to be examined with great precision, a thing that I might not have patience for unless people who understand the content show up at AN3 to explain the dispute to the closing admins. Sorry for taking you away from your valuable work! EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Report now closed, but thanks anyway! EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SMC Corporation logo.jpg[edit]


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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...[edit]

...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of it. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Tunisian Arabic[edit]

Dear User,

As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

My single edit to this article, back on 20 February 2014, was for technical reasons unrelated to the substance of the content, so I'm not really that familiar with the topic and thus don't have any comments to make about it. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi Wbm, have you considered running for admin? You appear to be well-respected and trusted, and have been here for long enough. If Rich can't deal with the histmerge backlog, maybe you can. :-) Alakzi (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, Yes, I've been considering that. Thanks for asking! And being the first to do so on my talk page. I keep finding too many non-admin tasks to keep me busy, but suppose I should start writing my request soon. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

RMCD bot down?[edit]

I might be overreacting, but it hasn't edited in two hours. Do you know what's up with it? Jenks24 (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, working again now. Jenks24 (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, Jenks24. There indeed was a problem. The bot re-started its updates with this edit. Total downtime 412 hours. I was "out of the office" for a while this morning, and still a bit groggy when I fixed it. The problem was caused by this new request. The bot has trouble reading through all that and finding the requestor's signature at the end. There is no en dash before the start of the rationale, so that tells me they used {{requested move/dated}} directly, as {{requested move}} always puts the en dash in the expected place. Unfortunately the bot did not flag that as a malformed request, rather it simply aborted all processing after it hit that. This edit fixed it, and also kept that lengthy rationale from being copied in its entirely to the RM page. I'll copy this section to the bot's talk page to get it on my to-do list for fixing exploits that could stop the bot's updates. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed response! By the way, I couldn't help but notice someone a few sections above suggesting RfA. I think you'd make a great admin, you'll have a support from me when you run Face-smile.svg Jenks24 (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Homemade chocolate chip cookies, fresh out of the oven, November 2009.jpg
Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven!
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

JarrahTree's issue with RM bot[edit]

This person prefers a signature after original signature, not before. It confuses him. I bet the RFC thing doesn't bode well with him either. --George Ho (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I see, you're referring to Talk:Eastern Railway (Western Australia). If he's confused by that, he will really be confused by the regular expression needed to figure out which signature and time stamp to use for the date of the listing. When I first took over the bot in August 2012, I made this change to address an issue. Looks like the bot was just always picking up the first date it found in the rationale. That would explain the convention of putting the most recent relist date first. I patched it so that when there was no relisting it used the last date in the rationale. The code would actually be simpler if we just always used the timestamp at the end of the string – and put relists there. I suppose we just need to give a heads-up to the editors who relist, so they switch to the new convention. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
See this edit where I needed to insert a linefeed before a </small> tag so that the bot would pick up the signature at end of the line. I should fix it to work with this tag, as relists are often put in small text. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Another user's—Primefac's—issues with the bot[edit]

Just for the heads up. The person tried to move my "relisted" comment to somewhere else. George Ho (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

An easy mistake to make when one hasn't seen a relisting of a requested page move before... Primefac (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, guys. I'll get to work on fixing the bot to support relists done in the more intuitive manner. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@George Ho, JarrahTree, and Primefac: I gave an update on the status of this at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Changing relisting conventions to be easier and more intuitive.Wbm1058 (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Awesome, glad to hear it. Primefac (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed JarrahTree 23:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pygments[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 Pygments 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 web content, but it does not 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 "Click here to 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. MopSeeker (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


Per WP:EDIT WAR, do not edit war. If you make any changes, you are the one who must show consensus for them. Ignoring this important principle of community editing, may lead to your editing privileges being revoked. Debresser (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a followup to § Undid above. All I've done is create a new category. This editor has reverted my template edits which did nothing more than simply populate the category, and has ignored the WP:Edit summary advice "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors". I now see that, per my suggestion in § Undid, they have opened a discussion at WP:CFD, which I just noticed despite their neglecting to add {{subst:cfd-notify|Category name|yyyy Month dd|CfD section name}} ~~~~ to the talk page of the category's creator (that would be here). Depopulating the category prior to discussion violates the CfD advice "please do not amend or remove the category from pages before a decision has been made", tilting the discussion in favor of the proposed category deletion. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
If I didn't add an edit summary, that is not a reason to revert! Strange logic here. I sometimes get tired of writing "Unproductive edit" or "Not helpful" or "Not encyclopedical". Debresser (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Reversion was simply my way of asking for an edit summary. Unfortunately, the three rationales you just gave above all boil down to Wikipedia:I just don't like it, which is why I suspect you "get tired of writing" them. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
1. Please be informed that reverting is unacceptable as a way to ask for an explanation. 2. "Unproductive edit" or "Not helpful" or "Not encyclopedical" are accepted edit summaries, quite specific, and in no way the same as "I don't like it". Debresser (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and other such rationales are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and in edit summaries. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I see no reason why that argument should be avoided, if it is correct. We should always ask ourselves whether our edits further the goal of this project or not.
Please note that I used that argument to undo your change to the templates, not in the deletion discussion. Debresser (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course, you are free to revert any edit on any non-protected page, on the basis that the edit does not "further the goal of the project", and leave everyone guessing about the reason why you feel that the edit is not productive. I'm sure you will always believe that your assessment of an edit's helpfulness is correct, but without explanation, your edit just boils down to a vote. Voters just pull a lever or touch a screen, and aren't even given the opportunity to explain to the ballot how or why they made their decision. Of course at Wikipedia, editors !vote. Wbm1058 (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Do I really need to reply to this? There is no limit to helpfulness in the eyes of some, while in the eyes of others, some things are not helpful, rather go into too much detail. Wikipedia is about consensus, a balance between the two. I think it won't hurt to agree to disagree, while simultaneously respecting the each others point of view, and stick to the consensus so far, which was 1 category page without sort key. Debresser (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

2010 NCAA Division I Outdoor Track and Field Championships[edit]

Thanks for your help on the article. I ran out of gas last night and fell asleep with the computer literally on my lap. When I undertook this particular meet, I was experimenting with trying to semi-automatically wikify the massive results document. I've found lots more results to post, but I haven't hit on the answer to clean up so many of these errors. It turns even the correction into a massive editing project. So I deleted a lot of your cleanup, not because you did anything wrong, but that you cleaned up stuff (like individual field event attempts) that is not commonly reported in results like this. I just never got back to clean that out before you edited. Ultimately my goal is to have all of these results look the same, year after year. Trackinfo (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I know what you mean about running out of gas; sometimes I do that in the middle of the afternoon! Right, I was thinking the individual attempts was too much information for an encyclopedia. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisting instructions[edit]

Per WP:RM: "To relist a move request discussion, simply type <small>'''Relisted'''. ~~~~</small> before the initial requester's first timestamp (see this diff for an example). This can also be done by using {{subst:Relisting}}, which signs the relisting automatically. The RMCD bot uses the new timestamp to relist the entry on this page." (italics added for emphasis). Your recent changes on a few Talk pages are contrary to this advice. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I found some Talk page discussion about that from your edit history. I see that the convention is under discussion, and won't revert those changes. But eventually we need to make sure the instructions are aligned with the way the bot operates (and with what we're doing in practice). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I did add a {{notice}} to the instructions, and now I've updated them. See also § JarrahTree's issue with RM bot. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

re-open Ceres (dwarf planet) move[edit]

We did not just have the discussion to move Ceres (dwarf planet) → Ceres. We had a discussion to move Ceres (dwarf planet) → 1 Ceres. That is a totally different move request. This is to remove the disambiguation page and make Ceres the prime topic. The old one was whether to change the name to 1 Ceres. It may have the same result but it should run its course. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), I understand that, though someone implied otherwise in the discussion. Ceres (dwarf planet) has been subject of many move discussions (see the list at the top of Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet), including the same request earlier this year. The most recent discussion was running 6–2 against.
I learned a few things today. I did not know the name of the largest asteroid, nor did I know that it comprised approximately one third of the mass of the entire asteroid belt. I was especially surprised to read that a NASA spacecraft entered orbit around Ceres earlier this year. In contrast, I was taught that Pluto was one of the planets as a child, and note the extensive recent media coverage of the recent first-ever flyby. Hence, that dwarf planet doesn't share top billing with Pluto (mythology). I do recall another recent high-profile NASA mission, which landed on a comet. Why this mission didn't get the same coverage as that or Pluto is a puzzle to me. It seems that this Ceres kind of missed a great opportunity to move more into the spotlight. The presence of another space-based entity, CERES (satellite), doesn't help either. Nor the several organizations using the name. You can't just compare the dwarf planet with the mythological Roman goddess, you need to consider whether the dwarf planet predominates over all other uses combined. It's a high bar to cross. I see what happens when a marginal primary topic is designated as such. Editors will link to the goddess thinking it's the primary topic (it is, if mythology is a subject you're passionate about), leaving a link to the incorrect topic which is not flagged for correction the same way that links to disambiguation are.
I suppose I'm open to reconsidering this if you have a persuasive argument that hasn't been made yet that you think might turn the tide and get some to change their mind. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
You might misunderstand me. I am not necessarily for changing it from Ceres (dwarf planet) to Ceres. I did not vote as I was weighing the pros and cons. I am for proper procedure. That last time this was discussed in February it was not resolved, it was no consensus. The time before that it was suggested to make it the primary topic.... actually there was no other time per the talk page move request header. These things usually go for a minimum of 7 to 10 days... this went 18 hours! I will make it a formal challenge of the closure at the proper board but I thought to convince you to let this run it's course to see if we get consensus this time. To cut it short is not the way it works at wikipedia unless this exact same move request just happened a few weeks ago (and sometimes not even then if it was no consensus). Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, I reopened it. Noting that the word "snow" is not found in WP:RM/CI. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. But as I observe right this second, the first attempt was pretty mixed and ended in no-consensus. This attempt (after less than a day) was standing at solid 5-2 against with one extra inclined to oppose when it was closed. If you felt this was SNOW after 18 hours, then I question your judgment on what constitutes snow at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that I only came upon this page because the editor who initially "closed" it put it into Category:Fulfilled page move requests (or did my bot flag it as malformed? Maybe both). So I was only trying to clean it up. This is not something I would have closed this way on my own initiative. Based not only on the trend of the current request, but also the track record of the other recent requests, it seems to me that this is a longshot at best. So, I reluctantly reverted the previous malformed close, as you have appealed, which is within your rights. Pointing out the lack of provisions for "snow" in the closing instructions is more intended as an explanation to the editor I reverted. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It was flagged as malformed. Obviously wouldn't have been in Category:Fulfilled page move requests, but that's another issue I patrol for. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough and thanks again. I just posted something as a comment/discussion there to try and break the logjam. It probably won't help at all but at least I can say I looked at things and tried my best to gain consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


Didn't remember that it had previously gone to AfD, so thanks for linking it in the edit summary. And thanks for fixing the double redirect—it's usually easier for me to just let the bots handle it – czar 18:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes, particularly with more complex reshuffling, the redirect chain can get broken, and if they don't get fixed right away, they can redirect to the wrong title for months or years. Can happen with edit warring. Maybe not an issue here, but I generally play it safe if the cleanup isn't too time consuming. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your diligence toward getting Template:NRHP Focus working again. Awesome. ―Mandruss  21:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And for template NRHP-PA. Absolutely awesome. Do you have a bot that can do the replacement for all 3,000 articles, or should I join in the effort? Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been contemplating a request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, so that I can login as Bot1058 and turn on AWB's automated-mode. Unfortunately, that's a lot of procedural red-tape. Do you use AWB? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Reopened move discussion at Talk:Greyshirt (comics)[edit]

Hello, Wbm! I'm asking you about this because you fixed the formatting of the relist at this discussion, so I gather you are very familiar with how the RM listing system works. Here is the situation: The RM at Talk:Greyshirt (comics) was created on July 20 and relisted on July 30. On August 6 it was NAC closed by Kwamikagami. However, one of the discussants objected to the close, and Kwami gave them permission to reopen the discussion, which they did. How do we get it back onto the "current discussions" list at WP:RM? (I am the admin who carried out the closure result, so I'm trying to make sure things get done correctly.) --MelanieN (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - that was quick! --MelanieN (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Just needed to restore the {{Requested move/dated}} template. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Your RFA[edit]

Hello Wbm1058. Just wanted to say I hope you don't get discouraged from RFA solely based on GregJackP's comments. Your comments about not going too deep into things you don't have much experience with is a very smart move. I do advise taking others' "oppose" concerns about notability into account for the future whether this passes or not. Best of luck, Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

RfA confusion[edit]

Hello. Recently, at your RfA, there's been a lot of discussion about the format of RfAs in general, about where discussion should go, about whether admins in general should have 'created content', several bitter tangents, people starting petty arguments and thinly veiled personal attacks etc. etc. I'm sorry to say that I've probably caused a lot more hassle than it was worth by interfering all over it. I'd like to apologize on behalf of everyone who's made a comment on your RfA that isn't relevant to you personally, and I hope this whole mess hasn't affected you or the outcome of your RfA. I'm still crossing my fingers, hoping you'll get the mop. Good luck. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I came here for similar reasons. I recognize your RfA has been hijacked with a much more meta discussion about Wikipedia in general. I apologize for my part in this which is not minor, I hope that more productive discussion about the same topics happens in a more neutral venue. I sincerely hope this is not causing you undue stress and that you get to help out with all of the mundane work that comes with the admin tool set. Chillum 21:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI[edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg
Hello, Wbm1058. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Redirect template listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Redirect template. Since you had some involvement with the Redirect template redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)