User talk:Bumm13/Archive 5 - 9-23-16 through 11-17-18

Disambiguation link notification for September 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Portland Community College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Panther. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

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

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

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

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

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

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

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit!
Thanks for your edit on Pratt Institute! State abbreviations can be difficult for non-Americans to understand off hand (I am not american but do know NY but some other abbreviations I might have to look up haha). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cottonwood Island (Washington), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cottonwood. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Propinballweb.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Propinballweb.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) 18:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of television stations in Alabama (by channel number) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of television stations in Alabama (by channel number) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of television stations in Alabama (by channel number) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Dr Strauss   talk   17:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Changing links
Hi, I've noticed you've made a whole series of edits of the sort that WP:NOTBROKE specifically advises against. Please read through this and refrain from this sort of change in the future. Thank you. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, please stop. Your edits are disruptive. The guidelines at WP:NOTBROKE are very clear. If you have a problem with them, then you can take them up at the talk page there, but until those are changed, you have no basis for making these changes. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I would strongly suggest that you, as a relatively inexperienced editor, refrain from making edit reversions of dubious value. You have no business reverting my punctuation fixes because you (wrongly) interpret them as WP:NOTBROKE. Further reversions of such edits without proper reasons may require escalation of dispute resolution. Bumm13 (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * My edits are perfectly fine, it is your reversions that are inappropriate. Please stop your disruptive reversions per WP:POINT. Bumm13 (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Your edits are clearly violating WP:NOTBROKE. If you want to escalate this, then please be my guest; it might be a helpful way to proceed. But first, the policy in question seems pretty clear, and you haven't tried to explain why you think the policy doesn't apply.  --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * is correct that consensus prefers that links to redirects not be altered. Deacon is incorrect that this is Wikipedia policy (WP:NOTBROKEN is a guideline), and it's probably a waste of time to revert every single edit of this type. But honestly Bumm13, you're making extra work for yourself with all these "reverse disambiguation" edits. You're a long-serving Wikipedian who knows the ins and outs of this encyclopedia. We would all benefit from your talents being applied to more productive edits. Ibadibam (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * please do take note again of this well-intentioned effort to inform you about WP:NOTBROKEN. Please also review WP:MINOR, as marking edits that depart from consensus as "minor" may be taken as editing in bad faith. Ibadibam (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTBROKEN is not policy, period. And it was a minor edit, saying otherwise is being really pedantic. Your time could be better used fixing Wikipedia in a proactive manner rather than policing/micromanaging my edits. Thanks. Bumm13 (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response! I only performed a revert to get your attention, and you don't have to worry about me hounding your every edit. But I'm troubled that you seem to be so cavalier about flouting a guideline that is the product of longstanding consensus. Ibadibam (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Orphaned non-free image File:Applewin.png
Thanks for uploading File:Applewin.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) 03:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:YakimaSunKings97 logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:YakimaSunKings97 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) 19:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steuart Walton, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Attorney and Pilot ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Steuart_Walton check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Steuart_Walton?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Videopinball 2600.png
Thanks for uploading File:Videopinball 2600.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) 17:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of BOXX Technologies for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BOXX Technologies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/BOXX Technologies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion to be canceled for defamation of a person
https://wikivividly.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Massimo_Chiacchio_1997/Archive Hello, can you help me to delete this discussion, I am the character in question and I had created many Wikipedia accounts in the past and in this discussion someone mentioned my name with my date of birth and appears on search engines, someone can give me a hand to prevent my first and last name from appearing here? by Max 15:48, 2 september 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.201.200 (talk)

PC Atari Emulator listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect PC Atari Emulator. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey bumm13

 * Hey! long time, no talk Bumm13 (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. Glad to see ya around :) -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"Formatting fix"
Bumm, I don't understand the point of your edits like this one. The redirects serve a good purpose, allowing the source text to be simpler, and even allowing the possibility of a more specific article replacing the redirect in some cases. Piping and other tricks to avoid an existing appropriate redirect is seldom a good idea. Dicklyon (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Hello, I'm WikiHannibal. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. - I noticed the same thing 5 months later (a number of edits). Have you been doing that all the time? What is the point of an edit like this where you remove one pipe and add another? Please explain it here. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I owe you no explanation for cleaning up bad formatting. Saying my edits are unconstructive just because you don't like them is a bit over the top. It seems I run afoul frequently with "wiki-rules-lawyers" who think such edits are worth getting worked up about when there has been no consensus (please don't link me to WP:NOTBROKE or WP:NOPIPE as those are not decisions based on any actual consensus.). Maybe you should find something useful to do instead of admonishing long-time editors? Bumm13 (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see you've ignored this advice before. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Bumm13 is doing this for ages and has thereby caused tremendous damage to the project. I and other editors have had long discussions with him reaching as far back as 2013, and I am sure he has been doing this before.
 * User talk:Matthiaspaul
 * Wikipedia talk:Redirect/Archive_2013
 * Wikipedia talk:Piped_link
 * It has been explained to him in kind words, all the good reasons for why we have these guidelines were given, but he either just ignored the advice or gave arrogant responses like in the example above. I never saw him giving an explanation for why he is doing this, except for that he thinks he can, because he thinks he is not bound to editing guidelines.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bumm13, you do owe the community an explanation! Save the time, there is no reasonable explanation, so what you do owe the community is an apology for all the grief and damage you created (and continue to create) by these kinds of edits!
 * Unfortunately, a very significant portion of your edits are actually about such "format fixes" against WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE. These are long established guidelines which have community consensus at least since 2006, possibly earlier. They were not set up arbitrarily and out of a sudden, but based on specific and very good reasons:
 * to enable more insightful reverse lookup,
 * to improve categorization and allow for attributed links,
 * to gain insight into the usage distribution to optimize article titles,
 * to significantly ease possibly neccessary contents reorganizations,
 * and to keep the interconnections in a robust state maintainable far into the future
 * (most of which is not possible with piped links if they are used for more than the typical afix-blending for which they are fine). Always use the right tool for a purpose! This all has been explained to you in details more than once, so you know the reasons well and there is no need to repeat all this here again. If you found new special cases where you think piped links are preferable over redirects beyond those cases already discussed in the guidelines, please bring them up on the corresponding talk pages so they can be evaluated by the community and possibly be integrated. And, no, this is not wiki-lawyering and asking you to stick to rules just because they exist - it is asking you to adhere to these rules because there are very well-founded and far-sighted reasons for why these rules came into existance in the first place - the project would long have become unmaintainable due to its growth if we wouldn't have those rules (and 99.99% of the editors would adhere to them). Piped links don't scale like redirects.
 * You are, not accidently, but deliberately acting against these long established editing guidelines, and you are not doing it once (perhaps because out of an occasional need for a special fix for some unusual situation per WP:IAR), but all over the place. Over the many years you do these edits, you have been pointed to these guidelines by many fellow editors (including long-time and highly experienced editors in perfect standing), but to no avail.
 * This is not an acceptable behaviour in any editor, new or long-time, and it is in particular not acceptable in someone which has been given admin access - as an admin you must be absolutely trustable and a role-model of integrity, but by ignoring the community and acting according to your own rules, you are, unfortunately, the opposite of it. This behaviour is what causes other editors to leave the project in frustration, and potential new editors to never start editing here. It puts Wikipedia in a bad light.
 * I hate drama and have much better things to do, but if you don't stop this behaviour, it really might be necessary to spend the time to have you desysoped and blocked from further editing so that the community no longer needs to spend time to recover articles where you applied your "format fixes". Please understand that these kind of "fixes" are not only not necessary and no improvement to the articles, but they are actually causing damage to the project!
 * So, Bumm13, please have an insight and just stop it - stop it now and forever - instead of forcing the community to stand up and stop you. As you wrote above, there are better things to do, and I'm sure you can make useful content contributions instead of upsetting the community against you by trying to fix things that are not broken. Such a waste of energy...
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You say "you hate drama and have much better things to do"... so why don't you go do them, then? Build an encyclopedia instead of harassing a fellow editor over a non-issue. Bumm13 (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "has thereby caused tremendous damage to the project" -- Bollocks. Quit with the whiny hyperbole. Bumm13 (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm here because you hinder me (and other editors) from working on the better things more efficiently. I once again ran into a series of your "format fixes" and decided to visit your talk page and not just silently repair your "fixes" as I did so many times although I am so tired of your ongoing violations of our editing rules. And then I saw that other editors have also complained about the same behaviour. This problem is what needs to be fixed.
 * Please don't take this as harassment because it isn't. I have zero interest to hurt your feelings. I'm here because your edits put sand in the gear and are hindering other editors from being more productive than they otherwise could be and ultimately because our readers don't get the quality of service they otherwise could get. You are just not listening to the advice given to you by so many editors over all those years that it is unavoidable to adjust the tone to reach you: It isn't a non-issue, Bumm13, it is a serious problem! Can you hear us? Please let this sink in.
 * You obviously don't want to hear that (and I have no fun at all to tell you) but these edits are causing damage to the project, they destroy valuable infrastructure and keep other editors from being even more productive. We have guidelines which are very clear about how it should be done, and your edits are violating them. That's why we are here. That's why this must stop.
 * If it is a non-issue for you, than it should be trivially easy for you to stop it, you will have more time for productive work, and the other editors have nothing to complain about and can happily continue with their productive stuff as well. It would be so much more fun working together on an encyclopedia...
 * You even have an interest in technical topics, so you should not have difficulties at all to follow the arguments and accept the limitations of piped links in a project this large - even though ultimately our personal opinions don't matter, because for as long as we have these guidelines they are binding.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You speak of these "violations of our editing rules" while showing no actual consensus for your assertions. I brought up discussion about this matter back in 2013 and – guess what? – there was no consensus on the matter! You clearly see only what you wish to see (text displayed as an "established" rule or policy), actual consensus bedamned. Bumm13 (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Our guidelines reflect community consensus, they are there for you and anyone else to read and follow. Consensus regarding the relevant points hasn't changed in far more than a decade. As a courtesy, I already cited the relevant statements from the guidelines for you years back - it would be a waste of time to do it again. Don't get me wrong: If I could sense that you are trying to improve your editing behaviour and just have a difficulty to understand something, I, like any other helpful editor, would be more than willing to help and explain things to you. But, unfortunately, what I sense is a fundamental unwillingness to accept that guidelines are binding for you as well - so spending any more of my precious time on this would be just a waste of time. You will be held responsible for your edits.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)