This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi Wbm1058. Just lately I needed to search through the December history of WP:RMTR to see if a certain page had been moved through a request there. (The person who did the move did not clearly document why, but hinted that a move request was involved). While doing so it occurred to me that if RMCDbot made a log of its actions, I could quickly check if there was a related RM, even though that's not not exactly the problem that I was having at RMTR. So, is there a log that the bot makes in its daily work that shows where the discussions are, or the names of the pages proposed for moving?
A follow up to our conversation from 2013, wanting permanent links to closed AN3 reports: User talk:Wbm1058/Adding permalinks to block log entries. I solved this for my own use by putting the diff of my AN3 closure in the block message, when I post on the user's talk. For instance here. This still doesn't get the link to the report into the actual block log, but it makes it easier to find things later. And the diff survives any archiving that the user may do of his own talk. The link still works after the AN3 report is archived.
Since we last talked about this, you've made further progress in the area of RMTR, since you now get the rationale into the edit summary. Very convenient! Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 19:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston:
— wbm1058 ( talk) 20:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Regards: Velocity-addition formula I'm new. The subsection was already hidden; I've been doing my best to fix it. Should the warning have gone just above the subsection? Kebl0155 ( talk) 19:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Very much appreciate the additional tidy-up, many thanks. I knew I would have missed something... Yunshui 雲 水 16:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Please don't be rude to us. We're only trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keznen ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Speedwell Forge Mansion—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 06:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. You recently reverted an edit of mine at Shen Dzu. The reason I placed the redirect was because many newspapers and other media use the term "Holy Pig". I am trying to make it easier for other readers to find the article. Which form of redirect do I use, please? DrChrissy (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear Wbm1058,
I'm new as a contributor on Wikipedia and have a question regarding this requested move. I saw you removed my request and labelled your revision 'discuss'. What does that exactly mean in this case and what happens now regarding the requested move?
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Cercatrova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cercatrova1554 ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
If the Wali article is devoted exclusively to Islamic saints shouldn't there be another article for Wali as Islamic guardian of women and underaged?
Google:
wali guardian marriage
and you get "About 278,000 results"
BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to reach out to you regarding a title change discussion in Joaquín Guzmán's talk page. You were involved in a previous change there in 2015. I'd love to read your input. Thank you! ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 15:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Your revert restored the word "brace" to the intro. Could you go through the article and provide references for the word "brace" in the text? Without references in the text the word does not belong in the intro. Cheers. Moriori ( talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Planys-logo.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your effort disambiguating links to Robert Brown (botanist). If you're up for doing more, there are a couple more strings that represent easy cases.
There's also likely a few (R. Br) with both parentheses and a space. And there's some variation in spacing around the equal sign; some taxoboxes have extra spaces for padding so the equal signs all are justified into the same column (e.g. Banksia sphaerocarpa), and occasionally spaces are stripped out. If you can make AWB ignore white space characters that could catch these. Plantdrew ( talk) 01:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
A discussion you may be interested in is at Talk:Symmetric multiprocessing#Merger proposal - I see you had to choose when dabbing a link. Widefox; talk 15:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Carbon reactions (photosynthesis)#Requested move 9 March 2017 has gone from messy to messier, and I don't want to make it messier still.
Could you check whether any of the unreverted out-of-process edits are going to cause the macros or bots problems?
Suggestions as to what should be fixed and how welcome. Andrewa ( talk) 02:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I found your comment on Malayalam Wikipedia on Jimbo's talk page, and I thought I might reach out to you since I edit on Malayalam Wikipedia. There is a state sponsored wiki called
Schoolwiki, which features articles written by school children from Kerala.
Sarvavijnanakosam is not exactly a competitor for Malayalam Wikipedia, since its license was changed to GNU Public Document License 1.2 in 2008 (
ref). --
Netha
(talk) 07:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on my RfA. I just went and moved a page and created a redirect and have a quick query - and I'm a bit embarrassed to have to ask as it looks terribly green -is there seriously anyone who fails at this? GoldenRing ( talk) 09:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd never heard of this person you mentioned in the RfA, so I checked their article out. Now, perhaps I'm out of touch but either a) the article is too long and seems to going to excessive, borderline stalking, detail or b) Ratajkowski is super-duper famous and well-known to everybody under about 25 and I'm just old. Which is it, do you think? My initial thought was it was a Neelix article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Why did you revert [1]? Your explanation is lacking ("per WP:MALPLACED, and there's an open requested move at Talk:Pence (disambiguation))". I know there's on open RM at Talk:Pence (disambiguation); I participated and announced I will make the change there. I know it's MISPLACED - the RM will fix that (I even tagged it "R to disambiguation" for that reason). Are you opposed to the change? Do you even think it's controversial? What problem are you solving with this revert? -- В²C ☎ 00:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 02:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your work on the 35th Annual Grammy Awards. Since I do not have an account here and do not want one, could you do my favour please and upload the official poster from this source 35th Annual Grammy Awards Poster and upload it to EN-WIKI and put it into the infobox in the article? Thanks! -- 188.108.37.186 ( talk) 17:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
We disagree on a few things regarding navigation tools around talk pages. And that's OK, we are a team.
But it's not OK to ask me whether I can read, [2] or to deliberately clutter a page with links that we both agree serve absolutely no purpose. [3]
Fair enough?
You are a highly intelligent and competent contributor (you'd fit right in at Australian Mensa). But Wikipedia is not just for us. It's for all English speakers both to read and to edit, and we have policies that support them in this, and our procedures and practices should support these policies. Andrewa ( talk) 20:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this reply, and the essay at wp:IPAT to which you linked in the edit summary makes some good points. But it does not IMO sanction you or anyone else ignoring the policies, guidelines and principles of Wikipedia.
See also Wikipedia talk:Ignore personal attacks#Balance. Andrewa ( talk) 21:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
We seem to have differing understandings of what the {{ redirect}} hatnote is for. It's for placement on top of an article to which a topic redirects when someone could have really had a different, also existing, article in mind when looking for that topic. It says so right in the template's documentation. It has nothing to do with whether there may be multiple redirects coming into the article sporting the hatnote. If there are multiple incoming redirects, each of which could also have been meant to go elsewhere, then each one gets its own {{ redirect}} hatnote.
Or come at this from another direction. If someone searches for "Jack's Place" and is expecting to learn about the TV program, why do you think it's wrong to steer that person in the right direction, to information that is available here, when the default result of his search brings him to the article about the restaurant chain? Largoplazo ( talk) 14:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Now I see that you turned to a different solution, making Jack's Place into a disambiguation page. That's ideal in this case. But given the prevailing circumstance, before you made that change, the presence of the hatnote was correct. Largoplazo ( talk) 14:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
For example in this edit you've gone through and changed all instances of "RPM" to the lowercase "rpm". Why? It looks like you're going through articles systematically to change them to lowercase, but you're not leaving any edit summaries explaining your reasoning. At Revolutions per minute you can see from the lede that there are numerous abbreviations in common use including rpm, RPM, rev/min, and r/min. Is there a reason to change all instances of "RPM" to "rpm" that you could (should?) be providing in the edit summary? - Thibbs ( talk) 18:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
[[revolutions per minute|RPM]]
so that
RPM (disambiguation) can be moved to [[RPM]]
but I'll leave [[rpm]]
as is, with revolutions per minute the primary topic for the lowercase form. OK?
wbm1058 (
talk) 20:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[[RPM]]
→ [[revolutions per minute|RPM]]
. I'm not that interested in starting a wider discussion, but feel free to do that if you want. –
wbm1058 (
talk) 22:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Symphony No. 2 (Rachmaninoff), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RPM Records. 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) 10:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi! The discussion has now been closed, but we agreed that for footballers' honours, it would be preferable to use "international" as a sub-heading over "country" for a player's victories with their national side, so I've been fixing that on several pages. Best, Messirulez ( talk) 04:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Just an FYI, this situation is the result of one editor's concerns about using a workaround that I haven't really seen as an issue in the 10 years that I've been editing TV articles. You can see the discussion here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You reverted my edit because there already exists a disambiguation page, but you didn't actually link the page harvest moon to that disambiguation page which means there is currently no way to get to the videogame series harvest moon from typing in harvest moon on wikipedia. I resolved an issue on wikipedia, you reverted the issue back without adding any alternate solutions. Please take responsibility. Mijzelffan ( talk) 18:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello; I would like to question you about the reversion of the move of List of dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy to List of battleships of the Royal Navy even though I had already accomplished some of the merge between the dreadnought page and the List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy|pre-dreadnought]] page. I did notice that your edit summaries said they were contested, but I was never able to find a link to where they were contested. Could you help me out with this so that we can come to a satisfactory and productive conclusion? – Vami _IV✠ 20:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Planys-logo.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Good day! Would you be able to fix the incoming links for AM/PM (album)? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, it was Xenephon that redirected there. I've fixed it now. Donama ( talk) 04:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wbm1058! I hope you're doing well! I'm messaging you regarding Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-12-13/News and notes and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-12/News and Notes - both are pages that you deleted per WP:A11 back in 2016. A11 doesn't apply to this namespace, and I don't understand your rationale for deleting these pages let along for this reason - so I went ahead and restored both pages and removed the CSD tags applied to them. I wanted to see if you could point out anything that I may have missed in case I made a mistake. If I did, please let me know ASAP so that I can undo what I did. Thanks, and happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Re this diff, under what circumstances is it an obstacle to page loading? On my desktop it loads a 47 KB thumbnail. — Guan aco 22:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wbm1058, for year nav/dab templates, I've compiled a rough list of the top candidates for changes here, if you're interested. While I was not a proponent for change in the first RfC, I remarked that I may be interested in making template changes if consensus emerges in the second RfC. Thanks for that note under the "AD" section. Anyway, just an FYI — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 17:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
You should be aware that this edit to {{ Year by category}} broke several hundred pre-1000AD categories where people did not expect to have to set the millennium, so eg Category:128 in Roman Britain gets categorised in Category:2128 rather than Category:128. Someone seems to have fixed most of them, but might I suggest that it would make sense if you changed the default on that template to 0001 so that it behaves "naturally" when people are working before 1000AD? Le Deluge ( talk) 03:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for editing. I saw your comment about the definition in an edit summary you wrote. The whole purpose of the article is to provide information on the scientific/medical use of the term. It is just a metric used in med journal articles and epidemiology for comparing one age group to another. Journal articles define the word. As for common usage, like you have pointed out, a wide range of terms is used to describe this age group. I don't know if this comment helps or not, but I thought you might like some kind of response to your edits. Thanks for helping make the article better.
I saw your interesting edit summary about the Elderly article. The point of the whole article is that the medical community has defined the word differently than its common usage. This is done for research purposes as described by the medical references. I should edit the Wikitionary with these references and their links. Thank you for your comment.
Hi Wbm1058,
please have a look at references 9, 11, 18, 19, 35, 36 and 56 - these proof pope em being fried and patronize. But I will find some more and insert them directly under "person". So thank you for your notice.
Paddy Pillow ( talk) 03:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
fried and patronize
it should say friend and patron
.
wbm1058 (
talk) 03:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Sir, Request for move the the page Prem Khan (Indian actor) to Prem Khan. Thank you Goalpariyahero ( talk) 14:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, you moved a page Prem Khan (Indian actor) to Prem Khan. I translated the article into Assamese as https://as.wikipedia.org/wiki/প্ৰেম_খান, and into Bengali as https://bn.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/প্রেম_খান; But these languages are not shown on the other languages of the English article. Need help of yours in this regard. Thank you! parthsar129 17:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axomiya deka ( talk • contribs)
Please take care to keep comments focused on content and not on contributors, as you did the opposite at [4].
Also, the content was NOT a "content fork", not sure if maybe you misunderstand usage of that term, perhaps. Sagecandor ( talk) 21:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Template:Catalan name has been nominated for merging with Template:Spanish name. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 17:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Please move Rajdweep (playwright and lyricist) to Rajdweep, Thanks Monuwara ( talk) 01:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
While auto racing fans may be unfamiliar with the term, the term 'ricing is widely used in food prep (please read the article!). So it IS a significant USE for the TERM ricing, though its meaning is unrelated to how the term 'ricing' is understood in car racing. Please don't remove the redirect to the article about the similar-sounding word 'Ricing (cooking)'. The article about rice burners is not damaged or diminished in any way by the clarifying redirect. MaynardClark ( talk) 14:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
the Bhutto government launched programs to put the country on road to self-sufficiency in ricing, sugar-milling, wheat husking, industries. Bhutto's government intensified the control of ricing, sugar-mills and wheat husking factories with initially believing that public sector involvement would reduce the influence of mega-corporations transforming into big monopoly sphere.So it seems the term ricing applies more than just passing rice through a kitchen utensil. – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I publicly thanked you for your recent edit, without actually seeing what you did on the page, after the intervention of original compiler Auric. To answer your question, my point was that English use favours the name Lys, which happens to be also the French. We do, after all, refer to fleur de lys. So for a river which flows for half its course in France, it makes sense to have River Lys as the title of the article instead of the Dutch Leie. My Flemish colleagues would fully accept this logic. So the English article should be named River Lys or Lys (river), in my view. David-waterways ( talk) 08:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for bumping into you again, but was that supposed to happen? – Uanfala (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
automatically delete any talk pages that only contain the project banner (and don't have any other content in previous revisions).I could do that if you can get consensus for it; though I would need to establish a bot with administrative privileges to complete that task. Be aware though, that some may have issues with leaving red links behind where pages have been moved (the discussions there got rather testy). The red link was left behind because the consensus of this requested-move discussion was to change the primary topic... just as by moving to Brijesh (Indian politician) you changed the PT for Brijesh. My bot has been operating for nearly a year now, and you're the first to finds issues with its edits. Note however, that while I haven't changed the bot's AWB instructions, I did recently expand the scope of its operations to include redirects to disambiguation pages as well as disambiguation pages themselves: see this diff and Template talk:R from incomplete disambiguation#Error checking revisited. So, please do suggest a better solution than what my bot is currently doing, but I still think what it's doing now is better than doing nothing. wbm1058 ( talk) 16:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I had no idea what I was doing. It finally worked but whatever you just fixed was still there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I notice you removed the hatnote from Bear on the basis that "Ursine is ambiguous".
Fair enough, but that hatnote also included the link to Bear (disambiguation) which was affected by the removal as well. I appreciate that these maybe should have been separate hatnotes in the first place, but please take care when removing things like this that you don't inadvertantly break something else. Thanks.
(I've already added a new hatnote covering Bear (disambiguation), BTW). Ubcule ( talk) 15:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Damn (Kendrick Lamar album). Because you were involved in the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. — The Magnificentist 12:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi and thank you for your help at RfD, it's appreciated! Just a note though, that after a discussion is closed, nowadays it's usually expected from the closer to place the {{ Old rfd}} note on the talk page (of course, unless the redirect was deleted). If you use the XFDcloser script, it will do that for you. – Uanfala 12:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wbm1058. Please see an email I sent you. Hoping to find out how to make progress on the documentation bug about Special:Permalink and Special:Diff, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T47221, and the the proposed Mediawiki code change to display something helpful if Special:Diff or Special:Permalink are invoked with no arguments. You and I discussed this back in 2015, and I'm happy to see that your talk page archives still remember the issues. It appears that in 2015 User:MatmaRex did the coding work to change Mediawiki. Hs change passed the code review, but the current status is 'Needs rebase'. One of the code reviewers was nl:User:Siebrand. I've been explaining the status to a person who knows more about documentation. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 13:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
EdJohnston, the change is live! Check out the new Special:Diff and Special:Permalink. I created the pages MediaWiki:Diff-form-summary and MediaWiki:Permanentlink-summary to show the "short piece of text to appear above everything else" on those pages, which overrides the default (which is to show no message at all). There are other components we can change too, such as the titles shown at the top of those pages:
Thanks so much for the nudge at Montreal that made this finally happen! — wbm1058 ( talk) 23:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this interests you but you never know:
WikiEditCrunch ( talk) 18:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Cheers mate. WikiEditCrunch ( talk) 19:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you add an inappropriate image to Wikipedia again, as you did at Peter Norton, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your behavior on this article has gone on too long. NFCC policy and consensus practice are quite clear. Nonfree book covers are generally not allowed in author bios; the nonfree use rationale for the image involved is plainly invalid, and neither that image nor your prior comments provides any basis under NFC policy for making an exception to the general rule. NFCC requirements are more restrictive than general "fair use" principles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 12:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
True, the magazine is currently primary, but based on Page Traffic and Links, Autocar Company should be primary. Can you change this, please? Sedimentary ( talk) 14:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the error I unintentionally made on the Ain't Nature Grand! article. Sorry about the mistake, but I appreciate your edit very much! -- JCC the Alternate Historian ( talk) 18:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The vandal that you just blocked is back using this IP address. Thanks. 73.96.113.19 ( talk) 00:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I took 5 articles out of the error category yesterday. DrKay ( talk) 06:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Could you add
-->(<!--
to this template, right before this line:
(Start parenthesis carrying marriage data)
It looks like you deleted it by mistake and I'm not able to edit it myself. Thanks. Bmf 051 ( talk) 21:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
These trucks are named "International". That is a fact. This is some kind of culture thing. These trucks are only called "Harvester" inside Wikipedia. A name has been made up for ease in linking Wikipedia articles.
This is such a simple thing and it has been made so complex. People go out of their way to make up complications. Maybe because they hate me. Nobody will just say "oops, got that wrong, better fix it". Thank you. Sammy D III ( talk) 02:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
About the requested moves discussion. As one of the simpler editors here I'm concerned this discussion seems to have cunningly escaped closing and I don't understand why. Am I allowed to bring it to the attention of an / any admin? If this discussion is closed with no change can the same discussion, more or less immediately, be re-commenced with this time more disciplined input from the supporters of the move? Is a renewed request barred for some long time? Thanks and regards, Eddaido ( talk) 01:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Eddaido and Sammy D III: See Talk:International Harvester S-Series § Requested move 18 November 2017. – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if you might be able to help me find something. Around 2010 or soon after there was a discussion of the appropriate name for International trucks (then I think without the Harvester). The argument for including Harvester was very narrowly carried on the grounds that it avoided confusion with any truck crossing the Canadian or Mexican or other border. I was truly startled at the time but still being a new kid on the block I did nothing - anyway I think the discussion was over when I found it.
Since 2008 there has been a Commons:category:International trucks and there has never been any confusion at all so far as I am aware (and I go around Commons tidying things up which is why I first raised this matter). The same unjustified concern has been raised again at the end of the most recent discussion.
I have made efforts to search through old discussions on Wikimedia and Commons without any luck. Is it possible you might have a better understanding of this environment, better tools and more success? Many thanks, Eddaido ( talk) 09:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your input at Tianxia. You might want to weigh in on the proposed title restoration move at Dynasty of Heaven. ch ( talk) 21:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable reference for the Caltech calculator? There is a Cal-Tex, which is well documented in the reference that you removed. Also, there are data sheets for the Cal-Tex calculator, but I find no data sheets for the Caltech calculator. Are they two different calculators? Or did the Caltech project lead to the Cal-Tex company to make them? Gah4 ( talk) 02:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
Caltex appears to be a relatively unknown California company that Tom Maher worked at. I don't see its significance relative to Texas Instruments, where the calculator was arguably invented. Though Hewlett-Packard might stake a claim to that as well. –
wbm1058 (
talk) 02:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Cal-Tex actually produced and sold chips.So did Texas Instruments. So what?
Is there no connection between the Cal-Tex company and the TI project?It's up to you to find a connection. We don't assume companies are connected unless someone can "prove" that they aren't.
The edit you reverted, is back again. special:diff/810643878. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Someone added a talk page references template into the discussion which ideally should stay at the bottom. So I added a subsection for it called References. However, if you edit the proposal section it takes you to the bottom of that section, which includes the References, so people will add their comments "at the end", and not retain the references at the bottom. That's why I create a separate Discussion subsection for just comments. It's natural to click edit on that, and that leaves the References below and out of it. I've seen it done before.
Do you have a better solution? -- В²C ☎ 19:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
As I have seen on your page (awards for your 'contributions') I firmly believe that deleting people's work should not go towards your "contributions" in Wikipedia, for you are simply removing. I say this on your page hence your copious amounts of deletion of information which can take users many hours of research to make, only to be brittled down and deleted. Hence, the diminishing amount of (active) writers to Wikipedia. Most of the contributions are editors who delete most, if not all proposed information without even attempting to peer edit the data. At least attempt to use the information as a mold for other writers. DoctorSpeed ( talk) 22:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.
Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Greetings. Please see their talk page for a query you might have some views on. James Y Marshall ( talk) 04:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Things have moved on to the Help Desk. I am not sure if you want to get involved, but can I appeal to you to do so, since it is being suggested there is something amiss in casting this as a Dennis vs. Floquenbeam issue, when in reality that is how it is, unless or until other Wikipedia Administrators register their views on how they think policy directs them to deal with journalists.
I understand if you don't want to wade into all of the posts, but another poster on Wikipediocracy has just distilled the issue quite well. Wikipedia has lots of editors who do not advertise any other means by which they can be contacted, other than via their talk page. So the ability to edit Wikipedia, if only for first contact for potential interviewees, becomes a necessary part of doing journalism about Wikipedia.
Given that, and taking all of Dennis' reasoning together (this is why reading all of his posts and focusing on him has become necessary, as he has set the only precedent so far, and is sticking to it), the inescapable conclusion is that he will block any journalist who attempts to contact a Wikipedia editor via their talk page for the purposes of journalism. And that he will always block someone who does that, regardless of whatever else they do (including something else that would indicate they intend to "contribute to the encyclopedia").
If you, as another Wikipedia Administrator, just a volunteer like Dennis, cannot agree with that as a sound interpretation of policy, then surely you see the problem facing Wikipedia and journalists in the future?
On the flip side, if you think a journalist contacting editors by the only means available to them should be a blockable offence, if you think that makes sense and is compatible with all policies and beliefs of Wikipedia, it would help resolve the situation faster if you just said that is how you feel, and would act in future, and I could then focus on how I get that explicitly mentioned in a policy, so everyone knows where they stand, journalists, Administrators and Wikipedia editors alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Marshall Y ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
If I understand the Request for Comment process correctly, what do you think of this as a possible question? I'm trying to keep it brief, without keeping out pertinent facts.
Should there be a protocol governing first contact between someone stating they are a journalist and those Wikipedia users who can only be contacted via their talk page? Or are current rules clear enough to determine if such contact is permitted, prohibited, or acceptable under certain conditions? If clarification is required, what should be clarified? For example, should there be requirements for journalists to identify themselves, or their publication, or their reason for the inquiry or intended recipient/s, or go through some other qualifying process or procedure to provide assurance the contact isn't likely to cause alarm, distress or disruption to Wikipedia or its users? This question specifically only covers the permissibility and nature of first contact with user/s, on the assumption that what happens in subsequent communications, if any, can be managed as normal. It is assumed that users will always be allowed to decline, ignore or remove any attempt at first contact, or indeed subsequent messages, and that should always be respected.
I would then add my personal view, as a comment.
Do you think it would be helpful, or needlessly distracting, to note that this is not a hypothetical query, but has its genesis in the dispute over the correctness of Dennis' block?
James Marshall Y ( talk) 18:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
James Marshall Y ( talk) 01:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
We are now 24 hours in, and the low number of responses is not what I would have assumed for such an important issue. Also very bizarre how people write "oppose", not clear to me how to interpret that, except I suppose as a "no" to the first question. Why can't they just say "no"?/Hard to know if this lack of interest is because people don't know about it, or don't care about it, or is just normal. I'm hoping the automatic random notification system does its magic and draws more responses, but I suppose it won't be obvious for a few days yet, as I think it only kicks in about now? P.S., any idea what Dennis means by "There are proxies involved, and that is all I can say about that."? James Marshall Y ( talk) 16:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Wbm1058. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
List of Olympic medalists in shooting for 25 m rapid fire pistol includes the following events:
The existence of the redirects from "25 m rapid fire pistol" to the event article with the correct distance is for the purpose of helping people, who initially think that these events were at 25 m, find the article with the correct distance in their search. Jeff in CA ( talk) 04:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:ISAWIT. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:ISAWIT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mathglot ( talk) 07:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The Happy Holiday Barnstar | ||
How about combining a Barnstar with a Christmas Card? That is why this message is appearing on your talk page. Simultaneously and at the same time, this barnstar is conferred upon you because during this past year you worked and contributed your time to improve the encyclopedia. You also have received far too little recognition for your contributions. In addition, this is a small attempt at spreading holiday cheer. I've appreciated all the things that you have done for me. The Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 23:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
Your recent bot task has been Approved.. Apologies for the long wait on this. Admittedly, I forgot about the trial. ~ Rob13 Talk 16:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 4/4. Since you had some involvement with the 4/4 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 130.126.255.11 ( talk) 16:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi Wbm1058. Just lately I needed to search through the December history of WP:RMTR to see if a certain page had been moved through a request there. (The person who did the move did not clearly document why, but hinted that a move request was involved). While doing so it occurred to me that if RMCDbot made a log of its actions, I could quickly check if there was a related RM, even though that's not not exactly the problem that I was having at RMTR. So, is there a log that the bot makes in its daily work that shows where the discussions are, or the names of the pages proposed for moving?
A follow up to our conversation from 2013, wanting permanent links to closed AN3 reports: User talk:Wbm1058/Adding permalinks to block log entries. I solved this for my own use by putting the diff of my AN3 closure in the block message, when I post on the user's talk. For instance here. This still doesn't get the link to the report into the actual block log, but it makes it easier to find things later. And the diff survives any archiving that the user may do of his own talk. The link still works after the AN3 report is archived.
Since we last talked about this, you've made further progress in the area of RMTR, since you now get the rationale into the edit summary. Very convenient! Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 19:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston:
— wbm1058 ( talk) 20:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Regards: Velocity-addition formula I'm new. The subsection was already hidden; I've been doing my best to fix it. Should the warning have gone just above the subsection? Kebl0155 ( talk) 19:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Very much appreciate the additional tidy-up, many thanks. I knew I would have missed something... Yunshui 雲 水 16:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Please don't be rude to us. We're only trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keznen ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Speedwell Forge Mansion—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 06:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. You recently reverted an edit of mine at Shen Dzu. The reason I placed the redirect was because many newspapers and other media use the term "Holy Pig". I am trying to make it easier for other readers to find the article. Which form of redirect do I use, please? DrChrissy (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear Wbm1058,
I'm new as a contributor on Wikipedia and have a question regarding this requested move. I saw you removed my request and labelled your revision 'discuss'. What does that exactly mean in this case and what happens now regarding the requested move?
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Cercatrova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cercatrova1554 ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
If the Wali article is devoted exclusively to Islamic saints shouldn't there be another article for Wali as Islamic guardian of women and underaged?
Google:
wali guardian marriage
and you get "About 278,000 results"
BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to reach out to you regarding a title change discussion in Joaquín Guzmán's talk page. You were involved in a previous change there in 2015. I'd love to read your input. Thank you! ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 15:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Your revert restored the word "brace" to the intro. Could you go through the article and provide references for the word "brace" in the text? Without references in the text the word does not belong in the intro. Cheers. Moriori ( talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Planys-logo.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your effort disambiguating links to Robert Brown (botanist). If you're up for doing more, there are a couple more strings that represent easy cases.
There's also likely a few (R. Br) with both parentheses and a space. And there's some variation in spacing around the equal sign; some taxoboxes have extra spaces for padding so the equal signs all are justified into the same column (e.g. Banksia sphaerocarpa), and occasionally spaces are stripped out. If you can make AWB ignore white space characters that could catch these. Plantdrew ( talk) 01:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
A discussion you may be interested in is at Talk:Symmetric multiprocessing#Merger proposal - I see you had to choose when dabbing a link. Widefox; talk 15:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Carbon reactions (photosynthesis)#Requested move 9 March 2017 has gone from messy to messier, and I don't want to make it messier still.
Could you check whether any of the unreverted out-of-process edits are going to cause the macros or bots problems?
Suggestions as to what should be fixed and how welcome. Andrewa ( talk) 02:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I found your comment on Malayalam Wikipedia on Jimbo's talk page, and I thought I might reach out to you since I edit on Malayalam Wikipedia. There is a state sponsored wiki called
Schoolwiki, which features articles written by school children from Kerala.
Sarvavijnanakosam is not exactly a competitor for Malayalam Wikipedia, since its license was changed to GNU Public Document License 1.2 in 2008 (
ref). --
Netha
(talk) 07:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on my RfA. I just went and moved a page and created a redirect and have a quick query - and I'm a bit embarrassed to have to ask as it looks terribly green -is there seriously anyone who fails at this? GoldenRing ( talk) 09:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd never heard of this person you mentioned in the RfA, so I checked their article out. Now, perhaps I'm out of touch but either a) the article is too long and seems to going to excessive, borderline stalking, detail or b) Ratajkowski is super-duper famous and well-known to everybody under about 25 and I'm just old. Which is it, do you think? My initial thought was it was a Neelix article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Why did you revert [1]? Your explanation is lacking ("per WP:MALPLACED, and there's an open requested move at Talk:Pence (disambiguation))". I know there's on open RM at Talk:Pence (disambiguation); I participated and announced I will make the change there. I know it's MISPLACED - the RM will fix that (I even tagged it "R to disambiguation" for that reason). Are you opposed to the change? Do you even think it's controversial? What problem are you solving with this revert? -- В²C ☎ 00:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 02:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your work on the 35th Annual Grammy Awards. Since I do not have an account here and do not want one, could you do my favour please and upload the official poster from this source 35th Annual Grammy Awards Poster and upload it to EN-WIKI and put it into the infobox in the article? Thanks! -- 188.108.37.186 ( talk) 17:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
We disagree on a few things regarding navigation tools around talk pages. And that's OK, we are a team.
But it's not OK to ask me whether I can read, [2] or to deliberately clutter a page with links that we both agree serve absolutely no purpose. [3]
Fair enough?
You are a highly intelligent and competent contributor (you'd fit right in at Australian Mensa). But Wikipedia is not just for us. It's for all English speakers both to read and to edit, and we have policies that support them in this, and our procedures and practices should support these policies. Andrewa ( talk) 20:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this reply, and the essay at wp:IPAT to which you linked in the edit summary makes some good points. But it does not IMO sanction you or anyone else ignoring the policies, guidelines and principles of Wikipedia.
See also Wikipedia talk:Ignore personal attacks#Balance. Andrewa ( talk) 21:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
We seem to have differing understandings of what the {{ redirect}} hatnote is for. It's for placement on top of an article to which a topic redirects when someone could have really had a different, also existing, article in mind when looking for that topic. It says so right in the template's documentation. It has nothing to do with whether there may be multiple redirects coming into the article sporting the hatnote. If there are multiple incoming redirects, each of which could also have been meant to go elsewhere, then each one gets its own {{ redirect}} hatnote.
Or come at this from another direction. If someone searches for "Jack's Place" and is expecting to learn about the TV program, why do you think it's wrong to steer that person in the right direction, to information that is available here, when the default result of his search brings him to the article about the restaurant chain? Largoplazo ( talk) 14:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Now I see that you turned to a different solution, making Jack's Place into a disambiguation page. That's ideal in this case. But given the prevailing circumstance, before you made that change, the presence of the hatnote was correct. Largoplazo ( talk) 14:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
For example in this edit you've gone through and changed all instances of "RPM" to the lowercase "rpm". Why? It looks like you're going through articles systematically to change them to lowercase, but you're not leaving any edit summaries explaining your reasoning. At Revolutions per minute you can see from the lede that there are numerous abbreviations in common use including rpm, RPM, rev/min, and r/min. Is there a reason to change all instances of "RPM" to "rpm" that you could (should?) be providing in the edit summary? - Thibbs ( talk) 18:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
[[revolutions per minute|RPM]]
so that
RPM (disambiguation) can be moved to [[RPM]]
but I'll leave [[rpm]]
as is, with revolutions per minute the primary topic for the lowercase form. OK?
wbm1058 (
talk) 20:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[[RPM]]
→ [[revolutions per minute|RPM]]
. I'm not that interested in starting a wider discussion, but feel free to do that if you want. –
wbm1058 (
talk) 22:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Symphony No. 2 (Rachmaninoff), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RPM Records. 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) 10:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi! The discussion has now been closed, but we agreed that for footballers' honours, it would be preferable to use "international" as a sub-heading over "country" for a player's victories with their national side, so I've been fixing that on several pages. Best, Messirulez ( talk) 04:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Just an FYI, this situation is the result of one editor's concerns about using a workaround that I haven't really seen as an issue in the 10 years that I've been editing TV articles. You can see the discussion here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You reverted my edit because there already exists a disambiguation page, but you didn't actually link the page harvest moon to that disambiguation page which means there is currently no way to get to the videogame series harvest moon from typing in harvest moon on wikipedia. I resolved an issue on wikipedia, you reverted the issue back without adding any alternate solutions. Please take responsibility. Mijzelffan ( talk) 18:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello; I would like to question you about the reversion of the move of List of dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy to List of battleships of the Royal Navy even though I had already accomplished some of the merge between the dreadnought page and the List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy|pre-dreadnought]] page. I did notice that your edit summaries said they were contested, but I was never able to find a link to where they were contested. Could you help me out with this so that we can come to a satisfactory and productive conclusion? – Vami _IV✠ 20:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Planys-logo.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Good day! Would you be able to fix the incoming links for AM/PM (album)? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, it was Xenephon that redirected there. I've fixed it now. Donama ( talk) 04:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wbm1058! I hope you're doing well! I'm messaging you regarding Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-12-13/News and notes and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-12/News and Notes - both are pages that you deleted per WP:A11 back in 2016. A11 doesn't apply to this namespace, and I don't understand your rationale for deleting these pages let along for this reason - so I went ahead and restored both pages and removed the CSD tags applied to them. I wanted to see if you could point out anything that I may have missed in case I made a mistake. If I did, please let me know ASAP so that I can undo what I did. Thanks, and happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Re this diff, under what circumstances is it an obstacle to page loading? On my desktop it loads a 47 KB thumbnail. — Guan aco 22:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wbm1058, for year nav/dab templates, I've compiled a rough list of the top candidates for changes here, if you're interested. While I was not a proponent for change in the first RfC, I remarked that I may be interested in making template changes if consensus emerges in the second RfC. Thanks for that note under the "AD" section. Anyway, just an FYI — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 17:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
You should be aware that this edit to {{ Year by category}} broke several hundred pre-1000AD categories where people did not expect to have to set the millennium, so eg Category:128 in Roman Britain gets categorised in Category:2128 rather than Category:128. Someone seems to have fixed most of them, but might I suggest that it would make sense if you changed the default on that template to 0001 so that it behaves "naturally" when people are working before 1000AD? Le Deluge ( talk) 03:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for editing. I saw your comment about the definition in an edit summary you wrote. The whole purpose of the article is to provide information on the scientific/medical use of the term. It is just a metric used in med journal articles and epidemiology for comparing one age group to another. Journal articles define the word. As for common usage, like you have pointed out, a wide range of terms is used to describe this age group. I don't know if this comment helps or not, but I thought you might like some kind of response to your edits. Thanks for helping make the article better.
I saw your interesting edit summary about the Elderly article. The point of the whole article is that the medical community has defined the word differently than its common usage. This is done for research purposes as described by the medical references. I should edit the Wikitionary with these references and their links. Thank you for your comment.
Hi Wbm1058,
please have a look at references 9, 11, 18, 19, 35, 36 and 56 - these proof pope em being fried and patronize. But I will find some more and insert them directly under "person". So thank you for your notice.
Paddy Pillow ( talk) 03:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
fried and patronize
it should say friend and patron
.
wbm1058 (
talk) 03:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Sir, Request for move the the page Prem Khan (Indian actor) to Prem Khan. Thank you Goalpariyahero ( talk) 14:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, you moved a page Prem Khan (Indian actor) to Prem Khan. I translated the article into Assamese as https://as.wikipedia.org/wiki/প্ৰেম_খান, and into Bengali as https://bn.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/প্রেম_খান; But these languages are not shown on the other languages of the English article. Need help of yours in this regard. Thank you! parthsar129 17:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axomiya deka ( talk • contribs)
Please take care to keep comments focused on content and not on contributors, as you did the opposite at [4].
Also, the content was NOT a "content fork", not sure if maybe you misunderstand usage of that term, perhaps. Sagecandor ( talk) 21:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Template:Catalan name has been nominated for merging with Template:Spanish name. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 17:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Please move Rajdweep (playwright and lyricist) to Rajdweep, Thanks Monuwara ( talk) 01:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
While auto racing fans may be unfamiliar with the term, the term 'ricing is widely used in food prep (please read the article!). So it IS a significant USE for the TERM ricing, though its meaning is unrelated to how the term 'ricing' is understood in car racing. Please don't remove the redirect to the article about the similar-sounding word 'Ricing (cooking)'. The article about rice burners is not damaged or diminished in any way by the clarifying redirect. MaynardClark ( talk) 14:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
the Bhutto government launched programs to put the country on road to self-sufficiency in ricing, sugar-milling, wheat husking, industries. Bhutto's government intensified the control of ricing, sugar-mills and wheat husking factories with initially believing that public sector involvement would reduce the influence of mega-corporations transforming into big monopoly sphere.So it seems the term ricing applies more than just passing rice through a kitchen utensil. – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I publicly thanked you for your recent edit, without actually seeing what you did on the page, after the intervention of original compiler Auric. To answer your question, my point was that English use favours the name Lys, which happens to be also the French. We do, after all, refer to fleur de lys. So for a river which flows for half its course in France, it makes sense to have River Lys as the title of the article instead of the Dutch Leie. My Flemish colleagues would fully accept this logic. So the English article should be named River Lys or Lys (river), in my view. David-waterways ( talk) 08:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for bumping into you again, but was that supposed to happen? – Uanfala (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
automatically delete any talk pages that only contain the project banner (and don't have any other content in previous revisions).I could do that if you can get consensus for it; though I would need to establish a bot with administrative privileges to complete that task. Be aware though, that some may have issues with leaving red links behind where pages have been moved (the discussions there got rather testy). The red link was left behind because the consensus of this requested-move discussion was to change the primary topic... just as by moving to Brijesh (Indian politician) you changed the PT for Brijesh. My bot has been operating for nearly a year now, and you're the first to finds issues with its edits. Note however, that while I haven't changed the bot's AWB instructions, I did recently expand the scope of its operations to include redirects to disambiguation pages as well as disambiguation pages themselves: see this diff and Template talk:R from incomplete disambiguation#Error checking revisited. So, please do suggest a better solution than what my bot is currently doing, but I still think what it's doing now is better than doing nothing. wbm1058 ( talk) 16:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I had no idea what I was doing. It finally worked but whatever you just fixed was still there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I notice you removed the hatnote from Bear on the basis that "Ursine is ambiguous".
Fair enough, but that hatnote also included the link to Bear (disambiguation) which was affected by the removal as well. I appreciate that these maybe should have been separate hatnotes in the first place, but please take care when removing things like this that you don't inadvertantly break something else. Thanks.
(I've already added a new hatnote covering Bear (disambiguation), BTW). Ubcule ( talk) 15:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Damn (Kendrick Lamar album). Because you were involved in the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. — The Magnificentist 12:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi and thank you for your help at RfD, it's appreciated! Just a note though, that after a discussion is closed, nowadays it's usually expected from the closer to place the {{ Old rfd}} note on the talk page (of course, unless the redirect was deleted). If you use the XFDcloser script, it will do that for you. – Uanfala 12:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wbm1058. Please see an email I sent you. Hoping to find out how to make progress on the documentation bug about Special:Permalink and Special:Diff, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T47221, and the the proposed Mediawiki code change to display something helpful if Special:Diff or Special:Permalink are invoked with no arguments. You and I discussed this back in 2015, and I'm happy to see that your talk page archives still remember the issues. It appears that in 2015 User:MatmaRex did the coding work to change Mediawiki. Hs change passed the code review, but the current status is 'Needs rebase'. One of the code reviewers was nl:User:Siebrand. I've been explaining the status to a person who knows more about documentation. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 13:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
EdJohnston, the change is live! Check out the new Special:Diff and Special:Permalink. I created the pages MediaWiki:Diff-form-summary and MediaWiki:Permanentlink-summary to show the "short piece of text to appear above everything else" on those pages, which overrides the default (which is to show no message at all). There are other components we can change too, such as the titles shown at the top of those pages:
Thanks so much for the nudge at Montreal that made this finally happen! — wbm1058 ( talk) 23:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this interests you but you never know:
WikiEditCrunch ( talk) 18:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Cheers mate. WikiEditCrunch ( talk) 19:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you add an inappropriate image to Wikipedia again, as you did at Peter Norton, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your behavior on this article has gone on too long. NFCC policy and consensus practice are quite clear. Nonfree book covers are generally not allowed in author bios; the nonfree use rationale for the image involved is plainly invalid, and neither that image nor your prior comments provides any basis under NFC policy for making an exception to the general rule. NFCC requirements are more restrictive than general "fair use" principles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 12:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
True, the magazine is currently primary, but based on Page Traffic and Links, Autocar Company should be primary. Can you change this, please? Sedimentary ( talk) 14:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the error I unintentionally made on the Ain't Nature Grand! article. Sorry about the mistake, but I appreciate your edit very much! -- JCC the Alternate Historian ( talk) 18:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The vandal that you just blocked is back using this IP address. Thanks. 73.96.113.19 ( talk) 00:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I took 5 articles out of the error category yesterday. DrKay ( talk) 06:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Could you add
-->(<!--
to this template, right before this line:
(Start parenthesis carrying marriage data)
It looks like you deleted it by mistake and I'm not able to edit it myself. Thanks. Bmf 051 ( talk) 21:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
These trucks are named "International". That is a fact. This is some kind of culture thing. These trucks are only called "Harvester" inside Wikipedia. A name has been made up for ease in linking Wikipedia articles.
This is such a simple thing and it has been made so complex. People go out of their way to make up complications. Maybe because they hate me. Nobody will just say "oops, got that wrong, better fix it". Thank you. Sammy D III ( talk) 02:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
About the requested moves discussion. As one of the simpler editors here I'm concerned this discussion seems to have cunningly escaped closing and I don't understand why. Am I allowed to bring it to the attention of an / any admin? If this discussion is closed with no change can the same discussion, more or less immediately, be re-commenced with this time more disciplined input from the supporters of the move? Is a renewed request barred for some long time? Thanks and regards, Eddaido ( talk) 01:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Eddaido and Sammy D III: See Talk:International Harvester S-Series § Requested move 18 November 2017. – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if you might be able to help me find something. Around 2010 or soon after there was a discussion of the appropriate name for International trucks (then I think without the Harvester). The argument for including Harvester was very narrowly carried on the grounds that it avoided confusion with any truck crossing the Canadian or Mexican or other border. I was truly startled at the time but still being a new kid on the block I did nothing - anyway I think the discussion was over when I found it.
Since 2008 there has been a Commons:category:International trucks and there has never been any confusion at all so far as I am aware (and I go around Commons tidying things up which is why I first raised this matter). The same unjustified concern has been raised again at the end of the most recent discussion.
I have made efforts to search through old discussions on Wikimedia and Commons without any luck. Is it possible you might have a better understanding of this environment, better tools and more success? Many thanks, Eddaido ( talk) 09:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your input at Tianxia. You might want to weigh in on the proposed title restoration move at Dynasty of Heaven. ch ( talk) 21:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable reference for the Caltech calculator? There is a Cal-Tex, which is well documented in the reference that you removed. Also, there are data sheets for the Cal-Tex calculator, but I find no data sheets for the Caltech calculator. Are they two different calculators? Or did the Caltech project lead to the Cal-Tex company to make them? Gah4 ( talk) 02:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
Caltex appears to be a relatively unknown California company that Tom Maher worked at. I don't see its significance relative to Texas Instruments, where the calculator was arguably invented. Though Hewlett-Packard might stake a claim to that as well. –
wbm1058 (
talk) 02:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Cal-Tex actually produced and sold chips.So did Texas Instruments. So what?
Is there no connection between the Cal-Tex company and the TI project?It's up to you to find a connection. We don't assume companies are connected unless someone can "prove" that they aren't.
The edit you reverted, is back again. special:diff/810643878. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Someone added a talk page references template into the discussion which ideally should stay at the bottom. So I added a subsection for it called References. However, if you edit the proposal section it takes you to the bottom of that section, which includes the References, so people will add their comments "at the end", and not retain the references at the bottom. That's why I create a separate Discussion subsection for just comments. It's natural to click edit on that, and that leaves the References below and out of it. I've seen it done before.
Do you have a better solution? -- В²C ☎ 19:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
As I have seen on your page (awards for your 'contributions') I firmly believe that deleting people's work should not go towards your "contributions" in Wikipedia, for you are simply removing. I say this on your page hence your copious amounts of deletion of information which can take users many hours of research to make, only to be brittled down and deleted. Hence, the diminishing amount of (active) writers to Wikipedia. Most of the contributions are editors who delete most, if not all proposed information without even attempting to peer edit the data. At least attempt to use the information as a mold for other writers. DoctorSpeed ( talk) 22:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.
Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Greetings. Please see their talk page for a query you might have some views on. James Y Marshall ( talk) 04:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Things have moved on to the Help Desk. I am not sure if you want to get involved, but can I appeal to you to do so, since it is being suggested there is something amiss in casting this as a Dennis vs. Floquenbeam issue, when in reality that is how it is, unless or until other Wikipedia Administrators register their views on how they think policy directs them to deal with journalists.
I understand if you don't want to wade into all of the posts, but another poster on Wikipediocracy has just distilled the issue quite well. Wikipedia has lots of editors who do not advertise any other means by which they can be contacted, other than via their talk page. So the ability to edit Wikipedia, if only for first contact for potential interviewees, becomes a necessary part of doing journalism about Wikipedia.
Given that, and taking all of Dennis' reasoning together (this is why reading all of his posts and focusing on him has become necessary, as he has set the only precedent so far, and is sticking to it), the inescapable conclusion is that he will block any journalist who attempts to contact a Wikipedia editor via their talk page for the purposes of journalism. And that he will always block someone who does that, regardless of whatever else they do (including something else that would indicate they intend to "contribute to the encyclopedia").
If you, as another Wikipedia Administrator, just a volunteer like Dennis, cannot agree with that as a sound interpretation of policy, then surely you see the problem facing Wikipedia and journalists in the future?
On the flip side, if you think a journalist contacting editors by the only means available to them should be a blockable offence, if you think that makes sense and is compatible with all policies and beliefs of Wikipedia, it would help resolve the situation faster if you just said that is how you feel, and would act in future, and I could then focus on how I get that explicitly mentioned in a policy, so everyone knows where they stand, journalists, Administrators and Wikipedia editors alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Marshall Y ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
If I understand the Request for Comment process correctly, what do you think of this as a possible question? I'm trying to keep it brief, without keeping out pertinent facts.
Should there be a protocol governing first contact between someone stating they are a journalist and those Wikipedia users who can only be contacted via their talk page? Or are current rules clear enough to determine if such contact is permitted, prohibited, or acceptable under certain conditions? If clarification is required, what should be clarified? For example, should there be requirements for journalists to identify themselves, or their publication, or their reason for the inquiry or intended recipient/s, or go through some other qualifying process or procedure to provide assurance the contact isn't likely to cause alarm, distress or disruption to Wikipedia or its users? This question specifically only covers the permissibility and nature of first contact with user/s, on the assumption that what happens in subsequent communications, if any, can be managed as normal. It is assumed that users will always be allowed to decline, ignore or remove any attempt at first contact, or indeed subsequent messages, and that should always be respected.
I would then add my personal view, as a comment.
Do you think it would be helpful, or needlessly distracting, to note that this is not a hypothetical query, but has its genesis in the dispute over the correctness of Dennis' block?
James Marshall Y ( talk) 18:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
James Marshall Y ( talk) 01:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
We are now 24 hours in, and the low number of responses is not what I would have assumed for such an important issue. Also very bizarre how people write "oppose", not clear to me how to interpret that, except I suppose as a "no" to the first question. Why can't they just say "no"?/Hard to know if this lack of interest is because people don't know about it, or don't care about it, or is just normal. I'm hoping the automatic random notification system does its magic and draws more responses, but I suppose it won't be obvious for a few days yet, as I think it only kicks in about now? P.S., any idea what Dennis means by "There are proxies involved, and that is all I can say about that."? James Marshall Y ( talk) 16:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Wbm1058. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
List of Olympic medalists in shooting for 25 m rapid fire pistol includes the following events:
The existence of the redirects from "25 m rapid fire pistol" to the event article with the correct distance is for the purpose of helping people, who initially think that these events were at 25 m, find the article with the correct distance in their search. Jeff in CA ( talk) 04:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:ISAWIT. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:ISAWIT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mathglot ( talk) 07:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The Happy Holiday Barnstar | ||
How about combining a Barnstar with a Christmas Card? That is why this message is appearing on your talk page. Simultaneously and at the same time, this barnstar is conferred upon you because during this past year you worked and contributed your time to improve the encyclopedia. You also have received far too little recognition for your contributions. In addition, this is a small attempt at spreading holiday cheer. I've appreciated all the things that you have done for me. The Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 23:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
Your recent bot task has been Approved.. Apologies for the long wait on this. Admittedly, I forgot about the trial. ~ Rob13 Talk 16:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 4/4. Since you had some involvement with the 4/4 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 130.126.255.11 ( talk) 16:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)