![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
I noticed that you've edited this article in the past. It's been receiving a lot of editing attention since the January 6th Insurrection/Storming at the US Capitol, some good, some bad. I'm sure it will continue to be on a lot of people's radar with Trump's impeachment and the ongoing unrest in the Unites States. I've put in a request for any kind of temporary protection at RPP but there's quite a backlog over there so if you could maybe take a look... greatly appreciated, etc. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 16:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wbm1058! I see you reverted my changes to add {{ R from misspelling}} to the redirect Full rigged ship. I made that edit based on Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 81#Full rigged ship by Chris the speller. GoingBatty ( talk) 19:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
[[Full rigged ship|full-rigged]]
)."From what I can tell, the decision was to delete. Aren't you lucky you have the tools to do just that, unless there's an issue? Atsme 💬 📧 19:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
::I missed that...two different people using the same article. Was there a move that I missed? How did that happen?
Atsme
💬
📧
19:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Nevermind, I see what happened. 20:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
To keep this template call out of the section title: Facist
At first glance, you probably meant to change the parameter on {{ R from misspelling}} rather than {{ R avoided double redirect}}.
However, according to the edit summary provided by @ Damian Yerrick: when retargeting Facist: It's a misspelling for both "Fascist" and "Face-ist", both of which have an article, so point at disambiguation page
Emphasis mine; similarly for Facism, retargeted by the same user to the same target, with the corresponding summary just replacing -ist with -ism.
If you think this is an implausible justification for the redirects, they should probably be reverted to a previous target. -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 19:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, an uninvolved editor named Buidhe closed Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#RfC:_Sherdog.com some time ago with the consensus for option 2 but somehow he used the explanation for option 3 in this [1]. That caused some confusion and then some editors in favour of option 1 complained about it here at User_talk:Buidhe/Archive_12#RFC_closure. Then Buidhe changed his closure 2 weeks later in this [2], again, and disregarded votes. He gave the explanation for why he changed the closure and disregarded votes 2 weeks later here at the complaint section User_talk:Buidhe/Archive_12#RFC_closure again. Apperantly he thought 5 options were confusing for editors who voted in the RfC and other editors perhaps voted for wrong options without knowing. So he didn't come to any straightforward conclusion and in the end the closure has become a mess that didn't close anything or reflect the consensus outcome of the RfC (or anything at all for one option or the other) although it was a pretty easy and short one with a rather clear rough consensus.
It would be far better if an experienced administrator like you closed the RfC once and for all, and erase this mess the closing editor caused because it affects a lot of articles in the Wiki and cause edit wars that rely on that RfC. Thanks in advance. 78.190.169.27 ( talk) 14:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, wbm1058! Will you please take a look at this request for PP? Can you restore the redirect before you PP it? I explained the situation in my request at PP Also, can you revert the IP's edit in the lead of CBS Corporation and protect that page, too? I thought about a possible AfD for the 1997 article since it doesn't warrant being a standalone article, and the transaction is already mentioned in the lead of the main article. Please ping me when you respond. Atsme 💬 📧 23:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Moving that stub to draft space was not a good idea, and neither was alleging that I did not AGF and was edit warring with that IP. NPP/AfC reviewers need admin support, not resistance, and above all, admins should not get involved in content issues. I did my homework which is expected of seasoned NPP/AfC reviewers, and I also have the user right to MOVE articles to draft space but chose not to for a valid reason. An admin should be focused on the behavior, not the content when an editor requests PP, and they certainly should not speculate on whether the article passes GNG, or should/should not be a redirect - that's what NPP reviewers are trusted to do, and I was doing my job. Right now, NPP has a backlog of over 2500+ redirects. I'd much rather waste my time well. Atsme 💬 📧 12:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
This is the recently moved talk page for the recently moved article. Was it malformed or blank? I would have expected project banners already applied. Is there something obvious I'm missing? Thanks for deleting the talk page on the newly created redirect. We appreciate your mop. BusterD ( talk) 01:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
You moved the article before the discussion on the talk page was finished... Maybe that's not wise?-- Ruling party ( talk) 20:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Why did you protect that page in 2016? It was and always has been a Wiktionary soft redirect, and does not need sourcing. JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 19:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has asked that analysis be kept to around 500 words. Your analysis over multiple sections is over 1,040 words. Please edit your sections to focus on the most relevant analysis. If you wish to submit over-length analysis, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. I understand that this is late in the day, but if you could shorten before the deadline that would be appreciated. Concise analysis is more useful for the committee in making its decision. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Your last three edits [3] to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence were made after the evidence phase was closed. The clerks will probably revert these edits but it would be better if you do that yourself and make a comment at the talk page instead. Nsk92 ( talk) 02:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
re: [4] comment: Not sure why I never got this ping, and just noticed this now. - but anyway, thank you for responding. — Ched ( talk) 20:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Here's an interesting news item: California Enacts Law Requiring IMDb to Remove Actor Ages on Request
I participated in an interesting conversation about this here. I'd be interested in hearing from others who are interested in this. What do you think? wbm1058 ( talk) 22:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Based on your recent edits, this Talk section may interest you. UW Dawgs ( talk) 21:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I have started a RM for Autocephaly, please come and give your feedback here. Veverve ( talk) 19:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Cake Tin. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 5#Cake Tin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
13:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
TWD. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#TWD until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
UserTwoSix (
talk)
01:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
You should have an infobox for Bobby Gaylor. Arek333 ( talk) 19:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about that; I had meant to add the other rcat (alternate capitalization) to the shell instead. jp× g 02:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the message on my talk page, and sorry about the confusion. I intended to fix a misspelling of "Chicago" and to correct two references to DOIs and one URL that were rendered incorrectly; I didn't intend to revert anyone else's changes or edits--I apologize if I did so unintentionally. It looks like everything has been sorted out now. Oaxacanalia ( talk) 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
...knowing about Crossfire Hurricane? The entire right-wing media bubble has obsessed over it for years, and the mainstream and left-wing media are not far behind. I envy you! Guy ( help! - typo?) 18:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi wbm1058, I'm guessing you want to engage on the capitalization topic, since you pinged me, but you're right that it's probably outside the scope of the section where you posted. My talk, your talk, or the RfC section would all be appropriate. Let me know! Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 20:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Pages linking to the Education Program namespace indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 13:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Wbm1058: why did you redirect the talk pages of some of the U.S. special routes to that of the list articles? For example, you redirected Talk:U.S. Route 15 Alternate (Chapel Hill, North Carolina) to Talk:Special routes of U.S. Route 15. The talk pages of redirects such as these are supposed to be assessed just like regular articles. Please, ping me for replies. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 22:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. You reverted my move closure at
Talk:Frente de Todos (2019 coalition), and then closed it yourself. I've gone over
WP:RMNAC and I don't see anything that supports your actions. There is this: If an administrator notices a clearly improper move closure, they should revert the closure and re-open the discussion.
, but it doesn't apply here in two ways:
clearly improper; it was supported by consensus and not against any policy or guideline.
revert the closure and re-open the discussion; instead, you immediately re-closed, based on what seems to be a non-policy-based supervote (there is no policy that we should follow any other project, including eswiki, with regards to anything at all).
So I would like to ask you to either respect my closure, or, if you can demonstrate that my closure was in fact clearly improper, to re-open the discussion. Unless I'm somehow wrong about all of this, then just explain why. Thanks! Lennart97 ( talk) 15:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
No minimum participation is required for requested moves. If no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy.No one objected, and the move did not conflict with any conventions, guidelines or policy. In fact, a primary topic can be established almost by pageviews alone ( [5]), with the 2019 coalition consistenly getting hundreds of views per day over the past 1,5 year, and the 1996 coalition consistenly getting 0, 1 or 2 - and that's on top of the 1996 coalition being regional and defunct. I can only conclude that my closure was not improper (let alone clearly improper) and should be restored. Lennart97 ( talk) 16:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
You might find this quite LOLish. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 17:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I see that you are on a campaign to remove the use of "solution" in the sense of "an answer to a problem ". Clearly, this is a legitimate meaning of the word. You even used this meaning yourself, multiple times, on this talk page. What's up? Leotohill ( talk) 00:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Oh, crap, sorry, my bad. I see that you are just addressing overlink. Ignore me. Leotohill ( talk) 00:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Pages that link to "Solution selling" in article-space wbm1058 ( talk) 15:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Mean as custard: Congrats on winning Editor of the Week earlier this month. I'm not keen on spoiling the celebration on your talk, hence pinging you here. Please read from the start of this section to see what I've been working on. After doing that a while, I noticed that many of my edits were cleaning up after you. I found that another editor complained about your multiple links ( DIFF) which is counter to MOS:REPEATLINK. Also, are you really not aware that on Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and not things to solve problems? It's hard for me not to think that you were disrupting articles to make a point. If so, your point wasn't taken as there were still hundreds of mislinks to the wrong meaning of "solution". I've mostly removed the links as WP:OVERLINKs to an everyday, well-understood word when used in that context. You would have made your point less disruptively by piping the links to [[ solution selling|solution]]. I'm hoping this is all water under the bridge and that you aren't making this sort of edit anymore. And also, thanks for what I think is your generally good work otherwise in cleaning up after promotional edits. I had been seriously considering making the move suggested at Talk:Solution#Rename this article to Solution (chemistry) as needed to combat all these mislinks by what I thought were clueless drive-by promotional editors, but now that I see who's responsible for a lot of them I'm having second thoughts about the need to pull chemistry off of primary topic status. wbm1058 ( talk) 02:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Jürgen Ehlers has been a featured article since 2013 yet had this mislink since 24 May 2008, until I just removed it today. wbm1058 ( talk) 18:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Affine focal set had a mislink since its 17 August 2008 creation, until I just now disambiguated it: Solution (mathematics). – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
1970s Dutch rock band – Solution (band). – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Another math fix – numerical solution – wbm1058 ( talk) 12:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Yay! Finally Done
wbm1058 (
talk)
18:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Are you sure about that deletion, considering earlier revisions?
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
16:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
..for the alert. Had I known I would have been happy to stop yesterday. As I said, it seemed OK as there were a number of such talkpages created a couple of years ago. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 22:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
hello. I am visually impaired. I am new to Wikipedia and I have no idea how to report people who are being hostile. it's very difficult for me to type in HTML so I am really out of my league here.
A help page suggested I contact an admin, it sent me to an admin page, I saw your account, so I thought I would ask for help.
Anyway, some guy made changes to a Wikipedia page, and I pointed out his mistakes to him on a "talk" page, I told him I was visually impaired and wasn't able to undo all the stuff he had done, and then he attacked me and accused me of not being visually impaired.
I looked at his talk page and he seems to be hostile to a lot of people.
I don't use wikipedia enough to learn how to do all of these things. I can barely type this message to you. I don't even know how to find this page again to see if you reply. I am really not built for this kind of computer work.
But if there is some way to report this person for being hostile, I hope you will help. Thank you.
Here is the talk interaction:
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Yappy2bhere#richard_cheese
And here is the wikipedia page I noticed was being modified incorrectly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Richard_Cheese&action=history
thank you for any help you can provide.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2603:8001:9442:6d00:9038:8a8c:a80:dabc (
talk)
00:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I didn't watch that YouTube video, I re-watched the movie on iTunes (not blurry). Then I called a friend to tell me the timecode in that YouTube video where the credits appeared. I originally saw the movie credits in a theater on a big screen, that's how I knew that the edit (accusing it of being "spurious") was wrong. But he also changed a bunch of other stuff on the page, which clearly shouldn't have been changed. Albums that are clearly available on iTunes. So why doesn't he update the page to include those links, instead of just deleting those from the page? If a window is dirty, you clean it; you don't shatter it and demand that someone else replace it. Is that how Wikipedia works?
And the larger point is, why is that person attacking strangers, especially who have a disability, and accusing them of not having a disability? Is that kind of behavior acceptable on wikipedia? I feel like that isn't 'small stuff.'
Anyway, thank you for your help. If you know anyone who wants to go through that page and undo the improper deletions, I hope you can get someone else to do it. I don't feel like I should undo his revisions because he's just going to attack me again.
I didn't come here to fight, but clearly he did. He gets into these fights all the time, according to his talk page. Shouldn't he be banned for repeated hostility? This is really a sour experience and I don't understand why people are so hostile to strangers. Sad times.
As for your eyes, I recommend the Jules Stein Eye institute at UCLA in Los Angeles. Good luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:9442:6d00:d2a:44c8:e56a:9997 ( talk)
Thank you!! I have always felt this way, but I always get annoyed when people continue to capitalize the "O". At some point, I started doing it too, because it's difficult to remain in isolation about these things. But anyway, it clearly should be a lowercase "o", because it's from "Coronavirus" not "COronavirus". Lol.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Computer keyboard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PDA.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I AGF it was not intended, but [6] while a {{ In-use}} was in place very nearly cost me 30-40 minutes work during a fairly major edit; as in is it has cost me 10 minutes. I see you were using Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups and if this cannot recognise {{ in-use}} then there is a problem. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I looked further, here's what I found:
WP:Naming conventions (music) says articles on musicians are covered by WP:Naming conventions (people), including what is said there on groups of people (
WP:Naming conventions (people)#Articles combining biographies of two or more people)
, and the latter says Occasionally, multiple persons with a strong connection are treated in a single article
with the example
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, a musical group named after its members ...)
which begins Crosby, Stills & Nash (CSN) was a folk rock supergroup...
.
If you still think you were correct, could you do Captain & Tennille next? (I'm curious how the Captain would be rendered.) Yappy2bhere ( talk) 18:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:National Institute on Money in State Politics.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) 19:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, courtesy note to this discussion regarding Bot1058 ~ TNT (she/her • talk) 23:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry that I came across as a bit aggressive with the noticeboard and such. I didn't mean to. It's just a bit problematic for the bot to go around recreating recently-deleted pages. I don't think the majority of those pages cause any problems, and as bot bugs go, its fairly benign. I just wanted to see if a solution could be worked out to get the bug worked out. I think your bot does great work. Hog Farm Talk 02:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
User:FloridaArmy recreated deleted BLP Stuart Scheller. Thank you. I mentioned you in relation to a comment you made about a disputed article.
Nil Einne (
talk)
07:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
may be my new favorite edit summary. Thanks for the laugh. Star Mississippi 16:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, I guess "I'm sorry" isn't enough, is it. But I am. I am so sorry I didn't consult you when I discovered that workaround and did not get with you before I documented it. I should have. I really should have. And I'm very sorry I didn't. I'll try to do better next time. Hope that someday you will be able to forgive what I did. I always want to be on a good track with you, so thank you for the stick to my behind and thank you beyond words for your herculean efforts to make this encyclopedia better! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 18:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
btw, I also miss editor Dekimasu. For a long time I've considered him a pillar of this community and a great source of wisdom and encyclopedic improvement. Any idea what happened to him? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 20:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Dear wbm1058,
I noticed that many pages in Wikipedia have links to Robin's Nest, which is a disambiguation page. Please change the link to Robin's Nest (TV series).
Thank you.
- Aravindhan Ravikumar ( talk) 04:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | |
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Republic of Taiwan (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted 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. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Wbm1058,
This category you created popped up on the nightly Empty Categories list. These categories are typically tagged for deletion in the next day or so but they are almost always content-related categories, not Wikipedia or project-related categories. So, I thought I'd bring this to your attention as I don't know the purpose behind this category and whether it should be filled with pages or whether it is no longer useful and can be tagged CSD C1 and sit in the Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for a week. Of course, as the page creator, you can delete it if you believe that should be the next step. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with you about mistrusting an institution's own history regarding when it was founded, but British newspapers are hard to search even with a UK local library card, which I haven't got; I tried a Wikipedia Library membership to the British Newspapers Archive for a year but found it absolutely useless, so I don't even have access to that to try. So I've just spent a lot of time trying to establish whether Sidcup Art College was the same institution as Sidcup School of Art.
There are a vast number of book references to the Rolling Stones, other 60s bands, and London in the 60s referring to Sidcup Art College, including Keith Richards' autobiography. But really, just a ton of books. And one Rolling Stones forum page referring to Sidcup Art School.
Outside that focus, there's an equally vast number of references, in books and online artist biographies, to Sidcup School of Art. This includes multiple mentions of its being founded by Cecil Ross Burnett: [7], [8]. This summary from an aggregation site gives an idea of the artists we are failing to connect it to: "This little-known art school was established in 1898 by Cecil Ross Burnett who was for many years its headmaster. While it did produce some fine artists such as the aforementioned Ross Burnett, Wally Fawkes (Trog), Jean Clark, Margaret Thomas and John Titchell arguably its greatest claim to fame that Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones was a student there." We have plain-text mentions at Frederick Cuming (artist), Jean Clark (artist), and Margaret Thomas (painter), and it is the "Sidcup" in Frank Auerbach ( he met his wife, Julia, when he taught her there). But the National Archives listing (which refers laconically to the records being at Bexley Local Studies and Archive Centre) is under the heading "Sidcup School of Art, Grassington Road, 1952–1964". This conflicts with not only the 1962 establishment date for Ravensbourne College but with the considerable pre-1952 history of Sidcup School of Art, so I wonder whether it just moved to Grassington Road in 1952?
It's possible the institution either formally or informally became a "college" by the 1960s in response to changing fashions or as part of its jostling for government support; among the Google hits was a mention of a failed attempt to be approved for granting a newly introduced diploma, and a 1978 directory listing has it as a 16+ institution with day and night classes including preparatory (which suits the stage of education at which, for example, Keith Richards went there). An interview with Phil May calls it Sidcup School of Art but attests to its being the institution we and the vast bulk of sources on the Stones and the Pretty Things call Sidcup Art College: snippet 1 and snippet 2. But it's also possible they were rival institutions, or one was a postwar re-foundation; or that the Art College nomenclature got started as a bit of social climbing on the part of someone involved with the Stones mythos and has just established itself by repetition. I would like to see a smidgen of independent sourcing equating the names, like something in the local press from either the 1960s or the development of the site for the supermarket in the oughties, or a use of the "college" name in an independent reliable source referring to the Ravensbourne merger (what was Ravensbourne known as after the merger but before closing its fine arts department in the 1980s? if not Ravensbourne, there may be a search term that would turn up something). If I were confident they are the same, I would have added considerably to the Sidcup Art College article, which only covers the Stones and mentions the Pretty Things, absolutely nothing about the institution itself, and I would have gone on to research Burnett; our article on him is a one-line placeholder. Yngvadottir ( talk) 03:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
If you'll check it, at the time I tagged that redirect I had just closed a malformed requested move, the title of which had just been moved due to a discussion that had, again at that time, determined that to use "attack" was a BLP issue. So yes, at that time, this was considered an unsuitable title. New facts come out about this very quickly, and at present it might be okay to include "attack" in the title as a COMMONNAME. I don't know, but I do wish you would not attack me on a personal level – "take care not to spam the project..." – over this or any other edits I've made. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 00:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
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 Naarm (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted 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. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:SACO Hardware logo.gif. 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) 18:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Wbm1058,
I believe AnomieBot created this redirect with a different kind of dash. This list is actually broken down alphabetically. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Best, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.
The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.
A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.
This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.
01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor
Talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
-- TheSandDoctor Talk 05:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Do you respond? 2A02:C7F:5640:100:A58D:8D94:79E7:F49D ( talk) 00:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wbm1058, just so you know, I've added a statement about the closure to WP:AN#Wikipedia:Administrative action review has been listed at MFD now. And I have reopened the discussion in the hope of someone uninvolved coming to the same conclusion. Thanks for your notification and the endorsement; let's see what happens. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Kudpung's talk page.
17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
FOLLOWUP:
User talk:MusikAnimal/Archive 44#Tunneling into the replica English Wikipedia database via PHP on Windows
Hi.
Nearly seven years ago you helped me with connecting to the replica database on Labs and we got as far as you can see your Labs MySQL credentials with
cat ~/replica.my.cnf
.
I didn't actually ever get that far because, as I recall, someone else picked up the ball I was carrying, and... figuring it all out was just too hard and time-consuming.
Fast forward seven years and now I've picked up another ball which I resolved to hold onto until either I solved it or someone else took the ball.
I successfully installed PuTTY and finally logged into my account on
======================================================================
_____ _____ _____ ______ _____ ______ ______ _______ | | | | | | |______ | | |_____/ | ____ |______ | |_____| |_____| |_____ | |_____| | \_ |_____| |______
======================================================================
"...a server of the tools Cloud VPS project, the home of community managed bots, webservices, and tools supporting the Wikimedia movement."
where after getting stuck at Passphrase for key "rsa-key-20150713":
I kept getting Wrong passphrase
until ~two days later I had an epiphany and remembered it!
Then cat $HOME/replica.my.cnf
revealed my user ID and password. (I needed to type $HOME
rather than ~
)
Then I successfully installed MySQL Workbench and got it working by following these instructions. I've successfully used MySQL Workbench to make the same queries I made on Quarry (and got the same results).
Now I'm stuck at The next part is figuring out how to get your PHP app to connect to the database through the SSH tunnel... maybe with the connection open through Putty and your credentials defined in the app it will just work, I'm not sure. E.g. if the PHP app is looking for a local MySQL database and 127.0.0.1:3306 (default port) is routed to the labs db through the SSH tunnel, you might be all set
.
See the example code at wikitech:Help:Toolforge/Database#PHP (using PDO). I've tried both PDO and MySQLi and it fails the same way on both:
PHP Fatal error: Uncaught PDOException: PDO::__construct(): php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: No such host is known.
Warning: mysqli::__construct(): php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: No such host is known.
Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [2002] No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it.
The line where it fails only specifies four of the nine or ten parameters I needed to set for MySQL Workbench to work.
The PHP installation manual says:
In the official PHP Windows distributions, MySQL Native Driver is enabled by default, so no additional configuration is required to use it. All MySQL database extensions will use MySQL Native Driver in this case.
So I assume that the other five or six parameters need to be specified in the MySQL Native Driver somehow? wbm1058 ( talk) 17:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
$mysqli = new mysqli("enwiki.analytics.db.svc.wikimedia.cloud",
..., I get$mysqli = new mysqli("127.0.0.1:3306"
..., I get
Connecting to the database replicas from your own computer says to set up a tunnel so that connections to port 4711 on your own computer will be relayed to the enwiki.analytics.db.svc.wikimedia.cloud database replica's MySQL server on port 3306. This tunnel will continue to work as long as the SSH session is open.
Also, Windows 10 has OpenSSH included and the
ssh
command can be used. On older versions of Windows, you can use the tool
PuTTY by add in Connection → SSH → Tunnels the following settings.
I'm still running Windows 7 on my desktop which is my main Windows machine supporting Wikipedia 24×7. I have a Windows 10 laptop which I use for backup but which is often powered down. I can try the Windows 10 SSH command later but first I want to get this running on my desktop using PuTTY. My PuTTY session is still open, and my understanding is that I need to keep my PuTTY session open 24×7 to be able to run a PHP bot that tunnels to the database 24×7. I configured my PuTTY per
How to set up PuTTY for direct access to your Toolforge account. There the Session
configuration says to specify port 22. Why 22 and not 4711 or 3306? All these port numbers are confusing for someone still trying to understand what they all mean.
I see from the banner at the top that "This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries." Sure wish you had a nice talk page watcher or stalker who could help. Trying to ask these questions via email or IRC seems difficult. wbm1058 ( talk) 16:21, 21 May 2022 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
I noticed that you've edited this article in the past. It's been receiving a lot of editing attention since the January 6th Insurrection/Storming at the US Capitol, some good, some bad. I'm sure it will continue to be on a lot of people's radar with Trump's impeachment and the ongoing unrest in the Unites States. I've put in a request for any kind of temporary protection at RPP but there's quite a backlog over there so if you could maybe take a look... greatly appreciated, etc. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 16:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wbm1058! I see you reverted my changes to add {{ R from misspelling}} to the redirect Full rigged ship. I made that edit based on Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 81#Full rigged ship by Chris the speller. GoingBatty ( talk) 19:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
[[Full rigged ship|full-rigged]]
)."From what I can tell, the decision was to delete. Aren't you lucky you have the tools to do just that, unless there's an issue? Atsme 💬 📧 19:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
::I missed that...two different people using the same article. Was there a move that I missed? How did that happen?
Atsme
💬
📧
19:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Nevermind, I see what happened. 20:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
To keep this template call out of the section title: Facist
At first glance, you probably meant to change the parameter on {{ R from misspelling}} rather than {{ R avoided double redirect}}.
However, according to the edit summary provided by @ Damian Yerrick: when retargeting Facist: It's a misspelling for both "Fascist" and "Face-ist", both of which have an article, so point at disambiguation page
Emphasis mine; similarly for Facism, retargeted by the same user to the same target, with the corresponding summary just replacing -ist with -ism.
If you think this is an implausible justification for the redirects, they should probably be reverted to a previous target. -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 19:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, an uninvolved editor named Buidhe closed Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#RfC:_Sherdog.com some time ago with the consensus for option 2 but somehow he used the explanation for option 3 in this [1]. That caused some confusion and then some editors in favour of option 1 complained about it here at User_talk:Buidhe/Archive_12#RFC_closure. Then Buidhe changed his closure 2 weeks later in this [2], again, and disregarded votes. He gave the explanation for why he changed the closure and disregarded votes 2 weeks later here at the complaint section User_talk:Buidhe/Archive_12#RFC_closure again. Apperantly he thought 5 options were confusing for editors who voted in the RfC and other editors perhaps voted for wrong options without knowing. So he didn't come to any straightforward conclusion and in the end the closure has become a mess that didn't close anything or reflect the consensus outcome of the RfC (or anything at all for one option or the other) although it was a pretty easy and short one with a rather clear rough consensus.
It would be far better if an experienced administrator like you closed the RfC once and for all, and erase this mess the closing editor caused because it affects a lot of articles in the Wiki and cause edit wars that rely on that RfC. Thanks in advance. 78.190.169.27 ( talk) 14:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, wbm1058! Will you please take a look at this request for PP? Can you restore the redirect before you PP it? I explained the situation in my request at PP Also, can you revert the IP's edit in the lead of CBS Corporation and protect that page, too? I thought about a possible AfD for the 1997 article since it doesn't warrant being a standalone article, and the transaction is already mentioned in the lead of the main article. Please ping me when you respond. Atsme 💬 📧 23:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Moving that stub to draft space was not a good idea, and neither was alleging that I did not AGF and was edit warring with that IP. NPP/AfC reviewers need admin support, not resistance, and above all, admins should not get involved in content issues. I did my homework which is expected of seasoned NPP/AfC reviewers, and I also have the user right to MOVE articles to draft space but chose not to for a valid reason. An admin should be focused on the behavior, not the content when an editor requests PP, and they certainly should not speculate on whether the article passes GNG, or should/should not be a redirect - that's what NPP reviewers are trusted to do, and I was doing my job. Right now, NPP has a backlog of over 2500+ redirects. I'd much rather waste my time well. Atsme 💬 📧 12:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
This is the recently moved talk page for the recently moved article. Was it malformed or blank? I would have expected project banners already applied. Is there something obvious I'm missing? Thanks for deleting the talk page on the newly created redirect. We appreciate your mop. BusterD ( talk) 01:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
You moved the article before the discussion on the talk page was finished... Maybe that's not wise?-- Ruling party ( talk) 20:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Why did you protect that page in 2016? It was and always has been a Wiktionary soft redirect, and does not need sourcing. JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 19:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has asked that analysis be kept to around 500 words. Your analysis over multiple sections is over 1,040 words. Please edit your sections to focus on the most relevant analysis. If you wish to submit over-length analysis, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. I understand that this is late in the day, but if you could shorten before the deadline that would be appreciated. Concise analysis is more useful for the committee in making its decision. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Your last three edits [3] to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence were made after the evidence phase was closed. The clerks will probably revert these edits but it would be better if you do that yourself and make a comment at the talk page instead. Nsk92 ( talk) 02:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
re: [4] comment: Not sure why I never got this ping, and just noticed this now. - but anyway, thank you for responding. — Ched ( talk) 20:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Here's an interesting news item: California Enacts Law Requiring IMDb to Remove Actor Ages on Request
I participated in an interesting conversation about this here. I'd be interested in hearing from others who are interested in this. What do you think? wbm1058 ( talk) 22:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Based on your recent edits, this Talk section may interest you. UW Dawgs ( talk) 21:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I have started a RM for Autocephaly, please come and give your feedback here. Veverve ( talk) 19:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Cake Tin. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 5#Cake Tin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
13:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
TWD. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#TWD until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
UserTwoSix (
talk)
01:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
You should have an infobox for Bobby Gaylor. Arek333 ( talk) 19:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about that; I had meant to add the other rcat (alternate capitalization) to the shell instead. jp× g 02:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the message on my talk page, and sorry about the confusion. I intended to fix a misspelling of "Chicago" and to correct two references to DOIs and one URL that were rendered incorrectly; I didn't intend to revert anyone else's changes or edits--I apologize if I did so unintentionally. It looks like everything has been sorted out now. Oaxacanalia ( talk) 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
...knowing about Crossfire Hurricane? The entire right-wing media bubble has obsessed over it for years, and the mainstream and left-wing media are not far behind. I envy you! Guy ( help! - typo?) 18:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi wbm1058, I'm guessing you want to engage on the capitalization topic, since you pinged me, but you're right that it's probably outside the scope of the section where you posted. My talk, your talk, or the RfC section would all be appropriate. Let me know! Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 20:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Pages linking to the Education Program namespace indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 13:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Wbm1058: why did you redirect the talk pages of some of the U.S. special routes to that of the list articles? For example, you redirected Talk:U.S. Route 15 Alternate (Chapel Hill, North Carolina) to Talk:Special routes of U.S. Route 15. The talk pages of redirects such as these are supposed to be assessed just like regular articles. Please, ping me for replies. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 22:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. You reverted my move closure at
Talk:Frente de Todos (2019 coalition), and then closed it yourself. I've gone over
WP:RMNAC and I don't see anything that supports your actions. There is this: If an administrator notices a clearly improper move closure, they should revert the closure and re-open the discussion.
, but it doesn't apply here in two ways:
clearly improper; it was supported by consensus and not against any policy or guideline.
revert the closure and re-open the discussion; instead, you immediately re-closed, based on what seems to be a non-policy-based supervote (there is no policy that we should follow any other project, including eswiki, with regards to anything at all).
So I would like to ask you to either respect my closure, or, if you can demonstrate that my closure was in fact clearly improper, to re-open the discussion. Unless I'm somehow wrong about all of this, then just explain why. Thanks! Lennart97 ( talk) 15:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
No minimum participation is required for requested moves. If no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy.No one objected, and the move did not conflict with any conventions, guidelines or policy. In fact, a primary topic can be established almost by pageviews alone ( [5]), with the 2019 coalition consistenly getting hundreds of views per day over the past 1,5 year, and the 1996 coalition consistenly getting 0, 1 or 2 - and that's on top of the 1996 coalition being regional and defunct. I can only conclude that my closure was not improper (let alone clearly improper) and should be restored. Lennart97 ( talk) 16:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
You might find this quite LOLish. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 17:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I see that you are on a campaign to remove the use of "solution" in the sense of "an answer to a problem ". Clearly, this is a legitimate meaning of the word. You even used this meaning yourself, multiple times, on this talk page. What's up? Leotohill ( talk) 00:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Oh, crap, sorry, my bad. I see that you are just addressing overlink. Ignore me. Leotohill ( talk) 00:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Pages that link to "Solution selling" in article-space wbm1058 ( talk) 15:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Mean as custard: Congrats on winning Editor of the Week earlier this month. I'm not keen on spoiling the celebration on your talk, hence pinging you here. Please read from the start of this section to see what I've been working on. After doing that a while, I noticed that many of my edits were cleaning up after you. I found that another editor complained about your multiple links ( DIFF) which is counter to MOS:REPEATLINK. Also, are you really not aware that on Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and not things to solve problems? It's hard for me not to think that you were disrupting articles to make a point. If so, your point wasn't taken as there were still hundreds of mislinks to the wrong meaning of "solution". I've mostly removed the links as WP:OVERLINKs to an everyday, well-understood word when used in that context. You would have made your point less disruptively by piping the links to [[ solution selling|solution]]. I'm hoping this is all water under the bridge and that you aren't making this sort of edit anymore. And also, thanks for what I think is your generally good work otherwise in cleaning up after promotional edits. I had been seriously considering making the move suggested at Talk:Solution#Rename this article to Solution (chemistry) as needed to combat all these mislinks by what I thought were clueless drive-by promotional editors, but now that I see who's responsible for a lot of them I'm having second thoughts about the need to pull chemistry off of primary topic status. wbm1058 ( talk) 02:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Jürgen Ehlers has been a featured article since 2013 yet had this mislink since 24 May 2008, until I just removed it today. wbm1058 ( talk) 18:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Affine focal set had a mislink since its 17 August 2008 creation, until I just now disambiguated it: Solution (mathematics). – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
1970s Dutch rock band – Solution (band). – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Another math fix – numerical solution – wbm1058 ( talk) 12:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Yay! Finally Done
wbm1058 (
talk)
18:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Are you sure about that deletion, considering earlier revisions?
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
16:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
..for the alert. Had I known I would have been happy to stop yesterday. As I said, it seemed OK as there were a number of such talkpages created a couple of years ago. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 22:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
hello. I am visually impaired. I am new to Wikipedia and I have no idea how to report people who are being hostile. it's very difficult for me to type in HTML so I am really out of my league here.
A help page suggested I contact an admin, it sent me to an admin page, I saw your account, so I thought I would ask for help.
Anyway, some guy made changes to a Wikipedia page, and I pointed out his mistakes to him on a "talk" page, I told him I was visually impaired and wasn't able to undo all the stuff he had done, and then he attacked me and accused me of not being visually impaired.
I looked at his talk page and he seems to be hostile to a lot of people.
I don't use wikipedia enough to learn how to do all of these things. I can barely type this message to you. I don't even know how to find this page again to see if you reply. I am really not built for this kind of computer work.
But if there is some way to report this person for being hostile, I hope you will help. Thank you.
Here is the talk interaction:
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Yappy2bhere#richard_cheese
And here is the wikipedia page I noticed was being modified incorrectly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Richard_Cheese&action=history
thank you for any help you can provide.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2603:8001:9442:6d00:9038:8a8c:a80:dabc (
talk)
00:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I didn't watch that YouTube video, I re-watched the movie on iTunes (not blurry). Then I called a friend to tell me the timecode in that YouTube video where the credits appeared. I originally saw the movie credits in a theater on a big screen, that's how I knew that the edit (accusing it of being "spurious") was wrong. But he also changed a bunch of other stuff on the page, which clearly shouldn't have been changed. Albums that are clearly available on iTunes. So why doesn't he update the page to include those links, instead of just deleting those from the page? If a window is dirty, you clean it; you don't shatter it and demand that someone else replace it. Is that how Wikipedia works?
And the larger point is, why is that person attacking strangers, especially who have a disability, and accusing them of not having a disability? Is that kind of behavior acceptable on wikipedia? I feel like that isn't 'small stuff.'
Anyway, thank you for your help. If you know anyone who wants to go through that page and undo the improper deletions, I hope you can get someone else to do it. I don't feel like I should undo his revisions because he's just going to attack me again.
I didn't come here to fight, but clearly he did. He gets into these fights all the time, according to his talk page. Shouldn't he be banned for repeated hostility? This is really a sour experience and I don't understand why people are so hostile to strangers. Sad times.
As for your eyes, I recommend the Jules Stein Eye institute at UCLA in Los Angeles. Good luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:9442:6d00:d2a:44c8:e56a:9997 ( talk)
Thank you!! I have always felt this way, but I always get annoyed when people continue to capitalize the "O". At some point, I started doing it too, because it's difficult to remain in isolation about these things. But anyway, it clearly should be a lowercase "o", because it's from "Coronavirus" not "COronavirus". Lol.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Computer keyboard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PDA.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I AGF it was not intended, but [6] while a {{ In-use}} was in place very nearly cost me 30-40 minutes work during a fairly major edit; as in is it has cost me 10 minutes. I see you were using Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups and if this cannot recognise {{ in-use}} then there is a problem. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I looked further, here's what I found:
WP:Naming conventions (music) says articles on musicians are covered by WP:Naming conventions (people), including what is said there on groups of people (
WP:Naming conventions (people)#Articles combining biographies of two or more people)
, and the latter says Occasionally, multiple persons with a strong connection are treated in a single article
with the example
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, a musical group named after its members ...)
which begins Crosby, Stills & Nash (CSN) was a folk rock supergroup...
.
If you still think you were correct, could you do Captain & Tennille next? (I'm curious how the Captain would be rendered.) Yappy2bhere ( talk) 18:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:National Institute on Money in State Politics.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) 19:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, courtesy note to this discussion regarding Bot1058 ~ TNT (she/her • talk) 23:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry that I came across as a bit aggressive with the noticeboard and such. I didn't mean to. It's just a bit problematic for the bot to go around recreating recently-deleted pages. I don't think the majority of those pages cause any problems, and as bot bugs go, its fairly benign. I just wanted to see if a solution could be worked out to get the bug worked out. I think your bot does great work. Hog Farm Talk 02:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
User:FloridaArmy recreated deleted BLP Stuart Scheller. Thank you. I mentioned you in relation to a comment you made about a disputed article.
Nil Einne (
talk)
07:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
may be my new favorite edit summary. Thanks for the laugh. Star Mississippi 16:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, I guess "I'm sorry" isn't enough, is it. But I am. I am so sorry I didn't consult you when I discovered that workaround and did not get with you before I documented it. I should have. I really should have. And I'm very sorry I didn't. I'll try to do better next time. Hope that someday you will be able to forgive what I did. I always want to be on a good track with you, so thank you for the stick to my behind and thank you beyond words for your herculean efforts to make this encyclopedia better! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 18:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
btw, I also miss editor Dekimasu. For a long time I've considered him a pillar of this community and a great source of wisdom and encyclopedic improvement. Any idea what happened to him? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 20:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Dear wbm1058,
I noticed that many pages in Wikipedia have links to Robin's Nest, which is a disambiguation page. Please change the link to Robin's Nest (TV series).
Thank you.
- Aravindhan Ravikumar ( talk) 04:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | |
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Republic of Taiwan (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted 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. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Wbm1058,
This category you created popped up on the nightly Empty Categories list. These categories are typically tagged for deletion in the next day or so but they are almost always content-related categories, not Wikipedia or project-related categories. So, I thought I'd bring this to your attention as I don't know the purpose behind this category and whether it should be filled with pages or whether it is no longer useful and can be tagged CSD C1 and sit in the Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for a week. Of course, as the page creator, you can delete it if you believe that should be the next step. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with you about mistrusting an institution's own history regarding when it was founded, but British newspapers are hard to search even with a UK local library card, which I haven't got; I tried a Wikipedia Library membership to the British Newspapers Archive for a year but found it absolutely useless, so I don't even have access to that to try. So I've just spent a lot of time trying to establish whether Sidcup Art College was the same institution as Sidcup School of Art.
There are a vast number of book references to the Rolling Stones, other 60s bands, and London in the 60s referring to Sidcup Art College, including Keith Richards' autobiography. But really, just a ton of books. And one Rolling Stones forum page referring to Sidcup Art School.
Outside that focus, there's an equally vast number of references, in books and online artist biographies, to Sidcup School of Art. This includes multiple mentions of its being founded by Cecil Ross Burnett: [7], [8]. This summary from an aggregation site gives an idea of the artists we are failing to connect it to: "This little-known art school was established in 1898 by Cecil Ross Burnett who was for many years its headmaster. While it did produce some fine artists such as the aforementioned Ross Burnett, Wally Fawkes (Trog), Jean Clark, Margaret Thomas and John Titchell arguably its greatest claim to fame that Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones was a student there." We have plain-text mentions at Frederick Cuming (artist), Jean Clark (artist), and Margaret Thomas (painter), and it is the "Sidcup" in Frank Auerbach ( he met his wife, Julia, when he taught her there). But the National Archives listing (which refers laconically to the records being at Bexley Local Studies and Archive Centre) is under the heading "Sidcup School of Art, Grassington Road, 1952–1964". This conflicts with not only the 1962 establishment date for Ravensbourne College but with the considerable pre-1952 history of Sidcup School of Art, so I wonder whether it just moved to Grassington Road in 1952?
It's possible the institution either formally or informally became a "college" by the 1960s in response to changing fashions or as part of its jostling for government support; among the Google hits was a mention of a failed attempt to be approved for granting a newly introduced diploma, and a 1978 directory listing has it as a 16+ institution with day and night classes including preparatory (which suits the stage of education at which, for example, Keith Richards went there). An interview with Phil May calls it Sidcup School of Art but attests to its being the institution we and the vast bulk of sources on the Stones and the Pretty Things call Sidcup Art College: snippet 1 and snippet 2. But it's also possible they were rival institutions, or one was a postwar re-foundation; or that the Art College nomenclature got started as a bit of social climbing on the part of someone involved with the Stones mythos and has just established itself by repetition. I would like to see a smidgen of independent sourcing equating the names, like something in the local press from either the 1960s or the development of the site for the supermarket in the oughties, or a use of the "college" name in an independent reliable source referring to the Ravensbourne merger (what was Ravensbourne known as after the merger but before closing its fine arts department in the 1980s? if not Ravensbourne, there may be a search term that would turn up something). If I were confident they are the same, I would have added considerably to the Sidcup Art College article, which only covers the Stones and mentions the Pretty Things, absolutely nothing about the institution itself, and I would have gone on to research Burnett; our article on him is a one-line placeholder. Yngvadottir ( talk) 03:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
If you'll check it, at the time I tagged that redirect I had just closed a malformed requested move, the title of which had just been moved due to a discussion that had, again at that time, determined that to use "attack" was a BLP issue. So yes, at that time, this was considered an unsuitable title. New facts come out about this very quickly, and at present it might be okay to include "attack" in the title as a COMMONNAME. I don't know, but I do wish you would not attack me on a personal level – "take care not to spam the project..." – over this or any other edits I've made. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 00:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
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 Naarm (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted 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. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:SACO Hardware logo.gif. 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) 18:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Wbm1058,
I believe AnomieBot created this redirect with a different kind of dash. This list is actually broken down alphabetically. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Best, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.
The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.
A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.
This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.
01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor
Talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
-- TheSandDoctor Talk 05:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Do you respond? 2A02:C7F:5640:100:A58D:8D94:79E7:F49D ( talk) 00:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wbm1058, just so you know, I've added a statement about the closure to WP:AN#Wikipedia:Administrative action review has been listed at MFD now. And I have reopened the discussion in the hope of someone uninvolved coming to the same conclusion. Thanks for your notification and the endorsement; let's see what happens. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Kudpung's talk page.
17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
FOLLOWUP:
User talk:MusikAnimal/Archive 44#Tunneling into the replica English Wikipedia database via PHP on Windows
Hi.
Nearly seven years ago you helped me with connecting to the replica database on Labs and we got as far as you can see your Labs MySQL credentials with
cat ~/replica.my.cnf
.
I didn't actually ever get that far because, as I recall, someone else picked up the ball I was carrying, and... figuring it all out was just too hard and time-consuming.
Fast forward seven years and now I've picked up another ball which I resolved to hold onto until either I solved it or someone else took the ball.
I successfully installed PuTTY and finally logged into my account on
======================================================================
_____ _____ _____ ______ _____ ______ ______ _______ | | | | | | |______ | | |_____/ | ____ |______ | |_____| |_____| |_____ | |_____| | \_ |_____| |______
======================================================================
"...a server of the tools Cloud VPS project, the home of community managed bots, webservices, and tools supporting the Wikimedia movement."
where after getting stuck at Passphrase for key "rsa-key-20150713":
I kept getting Wrong passphrase
until ~two days later I had an epiphany and remembered it!
Then cat $HOME/replica.my.cnf
revealed my user ID and password. (I needed to type $HOME
rather than ~
)
Then I successfully installed MySQL Workbench and got it working by following these instructions. I've successfully used MySQL Workbench to make the same queries I made on Quarry (and got the same results).
Now I'm stuck at The next part is figuring out how to get your PHP app to connect to the database through the SSH tunnel... maybe with the connection open through Putty and your credentials defined in the app it will just work, I'm not sure. E.g. if the PHP app is looking for a local MySQL database and 127.0.0.1:3306 (default port) is routed to the labs db through the SSH tunnel, you might be all set
.
See the example code at wikitech:Help:Toolforge/Database#PHP (using PDO). I've tried both PDO and MySQLi and it fails the same way on both:
PHP Fatal error: Uncaught PDOException: PDO::__construct(): php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: No such host is known.
Warning: mysqli::__construct(): php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: No such host is known.
Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [2002] No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it.
The line where it fails only specifies four of the nine or ten parameters I needed to set for MySQL Workbench to work.
The PHP installation manual says:
In the official PHP Windows distributions, MySQL Native Driver is enabled by default, so no additional configuration is required to use it. All MySQL database extensions will use MySQL Native Driver in this case.
So I assume that the other five or six parameters need to be specified in the MySQL Native Driver somehow? wbm1058 ( talk) 17:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
$mysqli = new mysqli("enwiki.analytics.db.svc.wikimedia.cloud",
..., I get$mysqli = new mysqli("127.0.0.1:3306"
..., I get
Connecting to the database replicas from your own computer says to set up a tunnel so that connections to port 4711 on your own computer will be relayed to the enwiki.analytics.db.svc.wikimedia.cloud database replica's MySQL server on port 3306. This tunnel will continue to work as long as the SSH session is open.
Also, Windows 10 has OpenSSH included and the
ssh
command can be used. On older versions of Windows, you can use the tool
PuTTY by add in Connection → SSH → Tunnels the following settings.
I'm still running Windows 7 on my desktop which is my main Windows machine supporting Wikipedia 24×7. I have a Windows 10 laptop which I use for backup but which is often powered down. I can try the Windows 10 SSH command later but first I want to get this running on my desktop using PuTTY. My PuTTY session is still open, and my understanding is that I need to keep my PuTTY session open 24×7 to be able to run a PHP bot that tunnels to the database 24×7. I configured my PuTTY per
How to set up PuTTY for direct access to your Toolforge account. There the Session
configuration says to specify port 22. Why 22 and not 4711 or 3306? All these port numbers are confusing for someone still trying to understand what they all mean.
I see from the banner at the top that "This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries." Sure wish you had a nice talk page watcher or stalker who could help. Trying to ask these questions via email or IRC seems difficult. wbm1058 ( talk) 16:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)