User talk:JamesLucas/Archive 2

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

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

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Pending Changes
Please don't approve pending changes that add unsourced personal information to articles as you did here. It's these types of edits that we're trying to prevent. Thank you, -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, —I fact-checked it and meant to add the citation and got distracted. The edit was a good one otherwise. jameslucas (" " / +) 22:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which source did you find?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , the day of the year is acknowledged on his ID-confirmed twitter feed. The year is posted on many other sources, although none as reputable, mostly celeb-watcher-type sites. I thought it added-up to being sufficiently convincing, but I'd certainly respect disagreement. jameslucas (" " / +) 01:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Twitter feed can be used as a reliable self-published source and should be added to the article. We'll have to hold off the year though as the reason it was removed was because multiple dates were presented without a source (there's some discussion on the talk page about this).-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 02:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * Thanks, ! Is there any Wikipedia etiquette that I should know when receiving friendly gestures such as this? jameslucas (" " / +) 15:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really, just remember that the WP:WikiLove feature exists (I thinks its enabled for everyone) and its a good idea to use it when appropriate. Don't forget the "Thank" button as well. Sometimes that can be used in lieu of a reply (if there's nothing more to be said) or just as nice gesture regarding someone's work. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wuz i duin suumthin rong??
Hi JamesLucas, thanks for pointing out my mistaken enthusiasm regarding the child lit portal. I have adjusted how I include them on articles (see recent edits:)). By the way, I am open to being 'trouted'

Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC) Ask and shall receive... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Proof of Wikipedia's collaborative nature! I was abroad for several days (in a country with plenty of cod but no trout), but everything continued seamlessly here! —jameslucas (" " / +) 13:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

 * link to archived answer

Hi JamesLucas!
I noticed that you are using AWB. I have made a preparsed list of articles that contain (possible) typos that can be fixed with AWB. Would you like to help fix some of them? If so, please remove the ones you want to do from the list, so that other people don't have to look at them again. In total I have more than 40.000 articles on this list, so I've split it up per 10.000 articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, —I certainly like to collaborate in general, but I'm on a kind of specific mission to add commas to frequently misformatted dates and locations ("On July 14, 2015a Wikipedian operating out Brooklyn, New Yorkbegan a tiny crusade against missing commas"), and the fixing of other typos is kind of incidental at the moment. I guess I'd be inclined to keep to my current tack since my list-generation method is achieving something like a 97% success rate. Having said that, if I'm screwing things up for other typo hunters by slowing the server or leaving them a lot of pages to skip, do let me know. Cheers! —jameslucas (" " / +) 13:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you know that we have a userbox for that? Please see Don%27t_worry_about_performance; you are probably unable to slow down Wikipedia's servers. This search query does not return many results. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually have a question on that front, and maybe you can opine: When I've run that search through Wikipedia's native search function, I been getting less that 1000 results (872 a few seconds ago). When I run that same search on AWB, I get a 1000 results, correct them all, and then can find 1000 more as soon as I'm ready for the next batch. What's up with that? Thanks! —jameslucas (" " / +) 00:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I recommend asking that question at WP:VPT. The answer I would give is incomplete, and based on outdated information (the software changes frequently, and the people who change it usually don't bother updating the documentation). TBH I would be quite interested to see the responses on WP:VPT, I'll watchlist it. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

13th United States Congress
Sorry I was too quick with the UNDO button! I think the commas you've added are unnecessary. For example, the first change but a comma in: "from March 4, 1813, to March 4, 1815." The next was "Successor appointed April 8, 1813, to continue the term." 12:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, —believe it or not, those commas are necessary. You can confirm at MOS:COMMA, but the upshot is that in American date formatting, the year is added as a comma-delimited parenthetical. It'd be straightforward if we used actual parentheses because we'd always have to close them regardless of context: July 4 (1776) She spoke of July 4 (1776) with tears in her eyes. But the comma is a logical nightmare (and often mistaught in school) since it is needed to open and close the parenthetical in a sentence but not present as a closing mark in a free-standing date: July 4, 1776 He spoke of July 4, 1776, with tears in his eyes. I'd be ready to abandon middle-endian date formatting for good, but as long as we have it, I try to keep it correctly formatted! Cheers—jameslucas (" " / +) 15:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your name in vain ;)
I referred to you at WT:CHESS, don't mean to draw you in discussion there (can be unpleasant), so ping'd you in editsum. (Did it work?) Thx. IHTS (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think that ping works in a summary since summaries aren't subject to the usual processes. And I didn't get a notification, so I guess that answers that. Glad you reached out to me here! —jameslucas (" " / +) 22:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thx! p.s. (Other topic.) German nouns are cap'd, am I right!? IHTS (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not every time, but very often—or so my German officemate tells me. I can't figure out how the hell it works. Lets go for it. Thanks for the awesome follow-up on my Malefiz overhaul. Even when I thought I had weeded out all instances of 'square' there was still one more! An independent set of eyes can be irreplaceable. Merry Christmas! —jameslucas (" " / +) 23:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thx for your fresh vantage at WT:CHESS (I think it helps). I chg'd your "controller" to "owner" (a subtle point maybe, "owner" seems possibly a permanent assignment whereas the other could imply transitory assign?!). Happy Xmas too, and thx again. p.s. Malefiz w/ make a good family Xmas game, w/ cider & roaring hearth, methinks. *sigh* IHTS (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My use of "controller" is 100% driven by my days playing Magic. I appreciate the fix! —jameslucas (" " / +) 01:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * German orthography calls for capitalization of all nouns but it isn't normal practice to do this when using German loan words like "zeitgeist" in English language text. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yay for new knowledge! —jameslucas (" " / +) 01:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Tea leaf grading page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=764181789 your edit] caused a missing references list (help | help with group references) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F764181789%7CTea leaf grading%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Shakespeare in the Park productions at the Delacorte Theater, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electra (play). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

U and non-U
Dear Mr Lucas, I have edited the article U and non-U English, but one has reverted my suggestion. As I can guess, one is from one of the lower classes, let me enlighten one about the U English spoken by us. We do NOT use the word "pardon" under any circumstances. It's a swear word. And I can even hand one sources:


 * Never use the P-word!
 * The P-word is a no-no
 * One should NOT use the p-word!
 * Don't use this word!

Please, undo your mistake. --Rævhuld (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * None of these sources is an obviously respectable and authoritative source the way an academic paper is, but any of them would strengthen your addition to U and non-U English. I see that you re-edited the article after my reversal and added your citations, which I think is a very good step towards being a constructive and valuable Wikipedia editor. Perhaps you could add your citations to the existing entry? Cheers —jameslucas (" " / +) 00:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

reference edit
Hi, thank you for your edit, but if you check the BBC article they do comment that she has opened the restaurant. The title might be misleading, but they clearly state that it opened. Its a legit reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testaccountbbeb (talk • contribs) 14:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The article says this:"'Now a regular cast member on ITV's The Only Way Is Essex (Towie), Megan has also recently ventured into the catering world.' 'I never ever thought about having my own restaurant. This is like modern British food and the music and design give it an Ibiza feel,' says Megan."Neither of these statements indicates that she owns a restaurant. I don't necessarily disbelieve that she does own a restaurant, but this reference doesn't demonstrate that. —jameslucas  ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  14:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you keep removing this reference even though I am supplying factual quotes from reliable sources. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testaccountbbeb (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry,, but I haven't undone any of your edits since the first one. If you are talking about to Megan McKenna, then it appears that your edit was  that determined that your edit was an act of vandalism because you removed a valid citation. I don't think you meant it as vandalism, but the link you added today is not as good as the link that you removed. I see that you yourself were the editor who , so I'm a bit puzzled why you chose to remove it today. If I can be helpful to you or provide further information, please let me know. —jameslucas  ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  15:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks James. Its all very puzzling! I saw that the message was removed and then re-added it with a different source. On doing that the Bot removed it, so I complied with the Bots rules and put it back. Looks all good. Now to create a page- my next step! Any recommendations are 100% welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testaccountbbeb (talk • contribs) 09:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an exciting project, . There's not much I can say about article creation that isn't said better in the guidelines at Your first article or at the homebase for new articles, Articles for creation. One tip I'll give you, though, is that the process of creating a new article involves some degree of review by veteran editors and maybe some conversation. If you sign all your posts on Talk pages by adding ~ after your message, you will come across as a more invested editor, which can sometimes elicit a more helpful spirit from community members. Cheers! —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  09:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your help! Thanks ~
 * To clarify, you need to add the four tildes, not the code I used to show you tildes. If you insert them in the normal way, the tildes will automatically be replaced with your signature, which by default will probably look something like Testaccountbbeb (talk) until you customize it. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  10:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC) Ah ok. Noted! Thanks again.

Chidera Okolie's deletion page

 * @ that which you speak of is quite untrue, she is not notable anywhere as i am unable to discover any reliable source that discuses her extensively, get us reliable sources on the subject of your article and only then would your thesis of her notability hold any water.Celestina007 (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Conflux expsym.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Conflux expsym.svg. 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) 17:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Fidget spinner as an office toy
On fidget spinner article it says: On December 23, 2016, James Plafke of Forbes published an article describing fidget spinners as the "must-have office toy for 2017." So if it says it's an office toy, it IS an office toy, so why did you remove my edit on the Office toy article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrandreev13 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Some subjects on Wikipedia have clearly defined parameters. France is a legally defined, internationally recognized region with few disputed territories. There is little ambiguity that Basse-Navarre is part of France (even though there are those who suggest that it should not be). Some subject, like office toy have no official definition, and the Wikipedia community needs to strike a balance between covering the spectrum what is meant by the term in question and creating articles with a clear, understandable scope. It's Mr Plafke's right to call the fidget spinner an office toy, because there's no legal definition of an office toy, but,, the fidget spinner does not fit into the existing set of examples because it does not fulfill the decorative function that the article sets forth. The discussion about what makes something an office toy is far from over, but I worry that adding the fidget spinner means that the door is open to Silly Putty, the Fidget Cube, and other devices that may be used in the office but are not mean to be displayed when not in use. (To complicate things, there are some objects like stress balls that could go either way.) I'd be happy to continue this conversation at Talk:Office toy if you are interested! —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  14:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The Public Theater revision
I looked at your referenced article, shakespeare in the park, and I found that The entry there was less articulate than the entry posted on The Public Theaters page. The entry was far smaller, and almost completely ignored the topic by basically saying "something happened, read it on nytimes." The edit may not be of full standard, however it is accurate. The entry should be left on the public theaters page or the two entries should be switched. If you find that it is misleading then you may make it not as much. If you find grammar, punctuation, or spelling errors, you may fix them. Currently you are trying to hide the occurrence of any event such as this by completely removing the reference to it. Please clean it up rather than removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.36.164.132 (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing accurate about the nonsense you keep trying to push into the Public Theatre page. It is not a "Trump Stabbing" play, it's a production of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar where they modeled the look of Caesar after Trump, just as productions in the past have used other current national leaders as models. The idiotic bias and utterly inaccurate reporting of the sources in the edit makes it supremely worthless, and it's inclusion POV-pushing vandalism. Cease trying to add it. oknazevad (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

How is this innacurate nonsense? The facts are stated in the article, the same article that is reference in the shakespeare in the park page, That addition is left untouched though. The writing is accurate in what it says, a play in which "Trump" or an effigy of him, is stabbed in a play. I am not posting an "idiotic bias" that is "utterly innacurate", rather it is a statement that The Public Theater believe this play to be a warning against violence towards any democratically voted official, while right media believes it to be inciting violence against the president. If you believe that the article is inaccurate find a accurate one and post it. Facts are though, Bank of America, the biggest sponsor of The Public Theater removed funding, while while another sponsor has stated that none of their funding will go towards the Shakespeare in the Park section of The Public Theater. I am not "pushing my point of view" through vandalism, I am stating facts. If you disagree, you are attempting to censor the web similar to how china censored Tienanmen square. If you believe it need to be fixed to not be opinionated, fix it. Do not remove facts, only opinions from Wikipedia, or this site will revert back to what it was years ago, where nothing was trustworthy here.67.221.121.30 (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Yggdrasil
 * It's the way it's stated. It's completely incorrect to call it a "Trump Stabbing" play, as it is stated in the article. The passage at the Shakespeare in the Park article is neutrally worded and factual. It's also accurately placed, as the funding in question if for he Shakespeare program specifically, not the Public as a whole. oknazevad (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delta Airlines, and Bank of America both pulled from The Public as a hole, while American Express only pulled from the Shakespeare program. This is stated in several articles, therefore it should be replicated on the most commonly used encyclopedia. On the Shakespeare page, the way it is stated makes it appear as though it is just a minor thing, rather than three of the largest supporters of the theater pulling funding, with 2 pulling completely, and one pulling funding only partially. The cited article does not make it appear as though the theater lost a good deal of funding, rather it sounds as though it lost minor sponsors, with no considerable impact. I would also like to state that the "Vietnam War" was, and still is officially considered a CIA operation. similar to how the Julius Caesar play is actually a play about Trump, the CIA operation in Vietnam was actually a war.67.221.121.30 (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Yggdrasil


 * There seems to be a pulpy mixture of misinformation about this production of Julius Caesar and misunderstanding about the nature of this encyclopædia. I'm not sure what more I can say that hasn't said other than to note that The Public and Shakespeare in the Park are both more than a half-century old, which makes it unlikely that this month's ado will justify more than a sentence or two. A mention in the article intro(s) is certainly overkill. —jameslucas  ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  17:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Basque Code Talkers
Hi, JamesLucas:

thanks for your review about the Code Talkers article, but I'm not sure which one was my mistake by editing it.

Could you explain it to me, in order to update it correctly?

Thanks a lot. Jcabalo (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In the, a half-dozen statements of fact were rephrased as if they were mere rumors or legend. I'm not well versed in code talking, and I have not reviewed the references, but I see enough in-line citations to know that some research has been done. This leads me to believe that your edits were not helpful. Normally I would have said something to that effect in my edit summary, but your edit summary said that you had "included more details", while in reality you had completely changed the meaning of the existing text. When I see such disingenuous behaviour from a new editor, I am less inclined to leave an explanation. Wikipedia is a great project and I hope you find ways to contribute to it, but contradicting existing statements without evidence or explanation is not going to be accepted by the community. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  12:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand your point of view. I'll rewrite those parts, but, precissely, my intention is to emphatyse that those affirmations are a myth. The source that I've included as reference (El enigma del mito y la historia: Basque Code Talkers en la Segunda Guerra Mundial) is a very recent study, made by a basque historian, that demostrates that Basque Code Talkers never existed, and in Spain is a very common belief. Of course, my intention has been never being "disingenuous", and I supposse that my main mistake has been not "highlighting" the source. I will rewrite those parts taking into account your comments. Thank you very much. Jcabalo (talk) |12:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Shakespeare in the Park incident
Hey. Just to let you know, I'm planning to follow up on our discussion at the article's talk page, but IRL is interfering just now. The short version is that I see your argument, but disagree with the conclusion (my priorities are different than the ones you're applying to the equation). But I'll go into that on the article's talk page when time allows. In any case, I don't think there's any particular rush to do anything in particular there. It'll keep until we can hash it out on Talk, and hopefully also get perspectives from multiple editors. Cheers, and thanks again for taking that issue in hand! --Xover (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There's definitely no rush! I'll be around, and it's not exactly the most trafficked article on Wikipedia. Also, as more time elapses and this story continues to drop out of the news, the priorities I established will be less and less be meaningful. Good luck with whatever's keeping you busy elsewhere! —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  14:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

What's the objection?
It allows them to wrap. Why would you want to allow them to wrap? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. "it's an æsthetic improvement". It is? What do you perceive "the improvement" to be? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keeping proper names and other short multi-word nouns from breaking across lines has been a recognized objective in good typesetting for over a hundred years. Keeping discrete units of information together aids clarity. In the case of the Led Zeppelin infobox, folk rock is a genre that, if split across a line break looks like two other common genres (folk and rock), so the benefit of preventing such a wrap is not even abstract or theoretical.
 * There is a enough of a recognition of the usefulness of this formatting that there are many tools designed specifically for this purpose, including non-breaking spaces and nowrap features built into numerous templates.
 * Probably no surprise to you is that this tuning is acceptable only so long as it doesn't cause problems for readers using small screens and/or accessibility devices. In this particular case, I see that all the genre names are about as long as (or maybe shorter than) the longest word in the same infobox—Honeydrippers—so I can be pretty sure that applying nowrap in this instance will not cause layout problems for any screens. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  13:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh dear me. For some reason that I now can't understand, I interpreted "class=nowraplinks" to mean the exact opposite of what it means. (Hence my comment: "It allows them to wrap. Why would you want to allow them to wrap?", which it doesn't.)
 * Yes, "class=nowraplinks" is an obvious improvement, and yes, what you've written mirrors my opinion. Maybe I need more coffee? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Ha! I've been there. I can't tell how many times I've had to stare at some template's documentation trying to determine if I need to set  or  or . It's one of the downsides to an ecosystem that discourages energy spent on standardization. Cheers! —jameslucas  ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  14:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

the Danny Hillis article
Sorry, I obviously tried to make too ambitious a change for my first edit. The article I used as a source was http://longnow.org/people/board/danny0/full/ It comes much closer to meeting the "biography for living persons" standards than what is there now and it has better references, but I will let someone else who has more experience to use it to improve the wikipedia entry. I will give up this article and try something simpler.
 * I don't doubt that have the ability to improve biographies like Danny Hillis, because you have good instincts about sources. Certainly tackling smaller changes is a good way to start, but you can pursue big changes to articles by making multiple smaller edits. I recommend editing one section at a time. Generally Wikipedia makes it easy to track changes and make before-and-after comparisons, but when the number of paragraphs in an article changes significantly, the software gets tripped-up and it becomes hard to review the changes. If you take on smaller chunks of text, other editors will be able to help you keep the best parts of your edits and fix the mistakes. If you want to take another go at Danny Hillis, I'll be around to answer questions or give you feedback. Best —jameslucas  ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  01:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alba D'Urbano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tivoli ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Alba_D%27Urbano check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Alba_D%27Urbano?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) 09:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Indefatigable (1799 ship)
Hi JamesLucas, I don't know how I missed this. Why did you change Indefatigable (1799 ship) to Indefatigable (1799)? I looked at the policy you cited and there is nothing there about not including the "ship". Removing that throws away information that might help the casual browser. More precise titles are more informative than more general titles. I just can't see what you have accomplished that is useful. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable question. My first first consideration was consistency with other article titles: other articles about ships with oft-reused names like Enterprise (1855) or HMS Surprise (1796) do not, by community convention, include the word 'ship' in the article title. Second, I recognized that "1799 ship" is not a natural phrase. Whereas you can say "the 2012 movie Argo in conversation, you can't say "the 1909 ship Indefatigable" and would have to resort to something like "the Indefatigable that was launched in 1909". Article titles should have a naturalness to them, and the parentheticals should too whenever possible.
 * Those are two arguments in favor of removing the word, but let's consider the argument for keeping it, which you mentioned: the benefit of greater specificity. But I don't think that's strong in this case because the word 'Indefatigable' is rare, and the few instances of that word that aren't ship names are relatively obscure (as evidenced by the fact that the disambiguation links for islands and gas fields of that name redirect to sections of articles of unrelated titles). Considering the title from these angles, I concluded that using the word 'ship' isn't likely to be significant and therefore it was better to have the article title for Indefatigable (1799) omit the word. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  04:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi JamesLucas: Agreed that Indefatigable is a relatively rare name. (All going well I will soon have a redirect up to another vessel whose name changed to Indefatigable.) I have written many ship articles and have used the "(ship YYYY)" formulation because I see myself as writing for people who know nothing about WP's naming convention, and care even less. In some cases they are genealogists and local historians and I am trying to provide a bit of disambiguation in the title. (The disamb role is especially relevant when the ship is named for a person, or a place.) I have seen cases where readers have assumed that the name of any vessel that emanates from Britain should be referred to as "HMS xxxx". Simply listing the vessel as "XXXX (yyyy)" may be an inadequate signal. (In your example of Enterprise (1855) I would add "steamboat" to the article name just to make it a little clearer that we are not talking about the slave ship Enterprise, or perhaps some Age of Sail vessel. In titles we are looking for an optimal point between complete generality and complete specificity, and I am pushing for a little more specificity. Thus I think Enterprise (1855) is better than Enterprise (ship), but not as good as Enterprise (1855 ship), or even better Enterprise (1855 steamboat). As for saying the title, once one puts in the year for the vessel, there is only a trivial difference between reading from right to left and saying "the 1855 Enterprise", and saying "the 1855 ship Enterprise". Yes that doesn't cover the launch year issue, but it does anchor the title in time and in a domain. Furthermore, with ships we have the problem that anyone may name a ship anything they choose (someday look up the name origins for HMS Shelanagig (1780) or HMS Black Joke). Thus we have many vessels with not only the same name, but also the same launch year. Then we get parentheticals such as Lord William Bentinck and  Lord William Bentinck. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I love the number angles from which you have approached this! There's nothing you're saying that I don't appreciate. I will note that the recent wide-release of the hover previews will hopefully lighten the load on parentheticals, and I'll continue to desire the most natural, sentence-ready article titles, even if that hampers specificity somewhat. "(YYYY ship)' will likely always fail that particular test.
 * I'm in a wiki-nadir at the moment while some other projects take precedent, but don't hesitate to reach me here if I can be of help on anything! —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  01:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

MOS:PLBLEAD listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MOS:PLBLEAD. Since you had some involvement with the MOS:PLBLEAD redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello NoAmCom! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)