User talk:JoeHebda/Archive 2018

Cristo Rey schools articles
I see you've tried to improve articles on Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School, and other Cristo Rey schools in the past. I've been dealing with User:John from Idegon and others who are active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools, with John being one of its coordinators. They acknowledge trying to implement a minimalist approach to what is allowed in school articles, so I am trying to establish that Cristo Rey schools should be admitted to the category Category:Poverty-related organizations but John removed it when I added it, and insisted that I get a consensus before adding the category. Admitting this category seems to me the best way to begin responding to his cleanup of the article according to the criteria that his schools project is seeking to impose, with reference to their own guidelines rather than to established Wikipedia policy. All of our dialogue has taken place on the page Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. You can see there how it developed. I suggest that besides placing this school in some social justice category we should restore some of the aspects of Catholic schools which John and others have consistently removed, and reverted attempts to restore. These include: mention of a retreat and service program at the school; use of pre- and post- nominals on the names of clergy and religious (as with the removal of SNDdeN from the infobox, and note their more radical suggestion, confusing these with honorifics); mention of some of the recognition that the model has received (60 minutes, Gates Foundation, More than a Dream) on the article page, as illustrative of the impact this school is having; reference to the Boston Globe article that mentions this school (Notre Dame in Lawrence). Before I go to dispute arbitration I ask your opinion on which of these contentious issues I should raise for dispute. If it is moved to arbitration I would hope that you and others who might see things differently from John of Indegon's perspective would be there to lend support. I've never had to initiate arbitration before, and I'd like to move into this carefully. Some of the issues raised here would have wide impact on articles related to religious groups, as you can see from the intentions expressed in the long discussion at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. I took this to administrators earlier in this process, when I felt overwhelmed by a few editors, and this ended with one administrator suggesting I go the route of consensus building. But it may be hopeless unless we can establish what I say near the bottom of the Notre Dame talk page, that "a school article can fall into more than one category, like when those supporting the school are doing it for reasons of achieving greater equity or social justice. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages we read that 'most articles are within the scope of multiple WikiProjects, and seek(s) to avoid conflicting advice'. But there is no project to advance the publication of articles on "social justice". Like you I have no personal concern in these issues but I believe that what I'm advocating would give a better understanding of these schools, entirely within the policy guidelines of Wikipedia and enhancing the encyclopedia's usefulness. Grateful for all your work, and looking for your advice here, Jzsj (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Greetings Jzsj - After looking at Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School article, I did add WP Catholicism to the Talk page. As to your comments above, this is way beyond me as I've been focused on article assessments rather than schools articles, infobox, etc. Personally, whenever any of my edits are revered by another editor, I usually "walk away" and "let it go". I figure that karma will come back to them. And besides with thousands of other articles to improve, I don't bother wasting my time on confrontation & arguments... Sorry I'm not able to offer any specific advice for you. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I just feel that this is not about one school but about a project to gradually remove most mention of the spiritual dimension from all school articles. I don't know whether making schools a part of a Catholic project will make those in the bare-bones schools project more or less determined to denude Catholic schools of their identity. I have shared your interest in improving Catholic articles and am on the second time of going through the list of them, selecting those to which I can most easily relate. I usually leave the "refs" section at  so that people in the project can go to that list to make a final check and raise the article to "B" status. Jzsj (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh Jzsj - I'm glad we are having this conversation as "thinking like an encyclopedia", here is an idea.
 * For these Catholic schools articles, how about making a section title Catholic identity? (or Community outreach?) Within describe school activites such as Retreats, Life-Teen, Homeless outreach, Soup supper, Pro-life march, etc. Make sure to be factual so it does not "read like an advertisement". By grouping these activities withing a section structure, it will improve the article content as well as less likely to be reverted. I agree with you that Catholic identity is a fact & see no reason for purging from these articles. It just needs to be presented in a straight-up factual manner (with Refs). Note: this should apply to schools of other faiths as well, not just Catholic. Hope this helps. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion. I will try it, but am currently beginning the consensus building process at the bottom, simply asking for other opinions on the Category:Poverty-related organizations. When I see how that comes out I will have ready the section you suggest. Thanks again, Jzsj (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A fundamental concern of mine here is that we can spend the rest of our lives creating what we believe are good articles, but then project teams can implement their plan to have merely bare-bones articles on places like schools, with little more than the history and expansion of the infobox. I want to know that what I am doing is worth my time. (So far my category discussion has attracted only those previously drawn to the article.) Jzsj (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Jzsj - To find more diversity of opinions for consensus, would it be helpful to ask at Teahouse? They have helped me in the past with other questions. BTW this is the first I ever heard of a WP seaking to reduce article content vs. the usual efforts are to enhance articles with more content.


 * Yesterday's the past, tomorrow's the future, but today is a gift. That's why it's called the present.
 * --Bil Keane, Cartoonist (Family Circus)


 * Another thought might be to contact Cullen328 "Jim", and ask for help. When I first started he helped me a lot & is definitely well-respected, and has a lot of Wikipedia wisdom. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this info. You'll see on Cullen's talk page that our relationship began with his seeming to give unqualified support to John of Indegon. But things developed better as we dialogued, and I'll follow your advice and regard him as someone who is not against a proper expansion of articles.
 * It's encouraging to hear that you've never seen Wikipedia Projects trying to reduce content. I'll proceed on that basis and hopefully get a better idea of their intent. Jzsj (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

After going through the consultation process and hearing only the same few voices, I've gone to Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. If you feel so inclined you might briefly weigh in on the issue. Thanks. Jzsj (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank You
Your contributions on my recently created articles are appreciated. - Conservatrix (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey
I've been working on something, and I thought you might find it interesting.

I'm looking for someone to try out a new tool (in the form of a user script) I'm developing.

It's called SearchSuite.js.

(Its user manual is on its talk page).

It's a bit rough around the edges, but it is operational.

It's not ready for general announcement yet (that's a long ways off), but I could sure use feedback from somebody on this thing. And so, your sense of curiosity came to mind...

I was wondering if you would like to take it for a test drive. :)

The discussion area for it is at the bottom of its talk page (which has become the script's workshop, kind of like totd). I hope to see you there. ;)

Sincerely,   The Transhumanist 08:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Wave
Greetings The Transhumanist - this afternoon I will look at this. I've been busy with improving Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles of which there are over 10,000 & I'm still in the "A's". Most afternoons Category:Articles needing additional categories are a challenge for me.

At first glance, it looks like many search options...only way to test will be to just jump in & try it out... Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey how do you find anything interesting to do on Wikipedia Jamaica Queen (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Gratitude
Thank you for consistently improving my recently created articles. - Conservatrix (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Signpost user topicon
Hey JoeHebda,

Stumbled upon this page here: Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Community, looks great! I was just wondering if you could also create a Signpost topicon in the manner of other topicons? Ideally the fields would be something like "date", "contributed" and then the name of the article and a link. I think it would be useful, and if there was one it would also let me link it on my user page (which is where I keep a record of my activities). What do you think?--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Greetings Tom (LT) - Yes, I have made some improvements to the Signpost Community page a while back. On that page what specifically are you asking? Guess that I'm a bit confused. This is the first time I heard of Topicons & do not know how to create. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and did this: Signpost user topicon. Turns out it wasn't so difficult! --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you so much for going through my recent edits/pages and fixing them up. You're the hero Wikipedia needs ---roroke (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Greetings ---roroke - Over these winter months I can do more for WP articles. Glad that your contributions improve article content as each of us has a role to play. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Members list
I notice that you were the last one to separate non-active members from the active members list for the Catholicism Project. Is this something that we should update again now? I would be willing to do it. Is there anyone who coordinates this project or can we make the decision ourselves? Jzsj (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings Jzsj - Yes, doing that seperation was a rather tedious undertaking. You are welcome to tackle if you like to do so.
 * When logged in, open a seperate tab window for "Contributions"
 * In another tab window, with WP Catholicism/Members page open, click on the Edit for "Members" section (so the edit window shows both active & inactive).
 * One-by-one, copy & paste member name into "Contributions" & see if they have any Wikipedia activity within the past year. (E.G. active after 01 April 2017)
 * If yes active, then leave this User as active; if inactive CUT from Active and PASTE to bottom of Inactive list.
 * When done, update the "as of" date in the Inactive section.
 * Hope this is clear enough. If too confusing, maybe I could do a few to get you started. Let me know. Thanks for your offer to help. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have mentioned that I had done precisely what you suggest here and found three of the first ten inactive and one scratched. Only one was very active, but when I get to this I will leave all those who were active in 2017 or since. Jzsj (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please don't edit robotically. Ku Klux Klan
MOS is a guideline, not a policy. It is not mandatory. Combining paragraphs together in a lede section because MOS says the lead should only have 4 paragraphs is editing like a robot, not like a human being with reasoning power. How paragraphs break should be deteremined by the writing, not by a silly rule. Please don;t do this again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And for that matter, don;t add "This article has no lead" tags top stub articles. It just encourages editors to split up a one paragraph article into sd3eparate sections, all one sentence each.  That's not helpful to the reader, and it looks like shit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Overcite on Melchor Liñán y Cisneros
Hi Joe, you put overcite on Melchor Liñán y Cisneros. Catholic Hierarchy and GCatholic are needed to show the non-Latin names of both the subject and the bishops that come before and after them. I just aggregate them at the top but what would be a good place to place them? I don't want to put them in the infobox. Should I put them in the Catholic Church titles area? If I do this, I would expect that someone would just remove them. Or should I put the cite for each diocese after their term in the heading? or perhaps where it is mentioned in the body? I think if we remove them we are doing a disservice to the reader. Thanks!Patapsco913 (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings Patapsco913 - A lot of good questions, so I'm confused. I thought most citations would be in the article body where appropriate. Since I started on Wikipedia back in 2014 I have not done any article citations. Just something I'm not good at... Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

German hymns
I don't believe that the pronunciation of German hymns is "needed". We have many hymns, some famous (Stille Nacht, O du fröhliche), but I don't recall any with that feature, which I think is optional, and the longer the title, the more confusing. I know how to write refs, but when translating from German, I often don't find any. Usually I look during the week following creation, because for DYK they are really "needed". An empty section must look strange to a reader in the mean time. - So, I will now go find refs, and the FAC will have to wait again, sigh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Same for Nun, Brüder, sind wir frohgemut. What would an IPA add to the understanding? 99,99% of readers are estimated to never have to speak it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Keeping in touch
Hey, I just wanted to update you on what I've been up to, and some of the things going on around the 'pedia that you might not be aware of...

As you know, I'm quite involved with Wikipedia's navigation systems.

One of the systems I had not been directly involved in for years, the portals, was nominated for deletion (yes, all portals, and the portal namespace) in an RfC that drew over 500 Wikipedians to comment.

It wasn't going well for portals, due to the pile on effect. I noticed that they hadn't notified the pages nominated for deletion. So, I intervened. :)

Many editors came to the portals' defense, and it turned out that many people are interested in portals, and we now have a thriving Portals WikiProject of 84 members.

We're in the process of automating portals, and I thought you might be interested in what we've been up to, and what we are up to now.

Sincerely,  &mdash; The Transhumanist   22:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC conflict and the Portals WikiProject.


 * Thanks The Transhumanist for the update. I'm happy to see the Portal progress. Yes, the Signpost article is informative & gives a good perspective on community consensus in addition to portal project. Years back I did notice a number of portals missing from the list, great they are being added. The portal automation is a great feature compared to manual portal news updates.
 * In addition to my usual updates for article assessments, I found 2 more categories that I like to work on, both with backlogs:
 * Category:Articles needing additional categories
 * Category:Articles needing sections
 * While different, they both offer challenges with the variety of subjects & article quality.
 * Thank you for all your efforts improving Wikipedia! Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Overuse of Citation needed
Dear JoeHebda,

I notice that you have been visiting several biographical pages of Catholic interest, to add the banner for the WikiProject Catholic to the Talk Page. Kudos.

However, you have also been visiting the article page, and (apparently) placing the citation needed tag at the end of nearly every paragraph that does not end with a reference note. You are doing this, in many cases, without considering other footnotes in the same paragraph or nearby, which actually contain the information which you think demands a footnote. This is mechanical, and abusive, suggesting you aren't actually checking the ref notes that are present to see whether they are adequate. Perhaps you also have a taste for the academic habit of placing all of a paragraph's references in a single reference note at the end of a paragraph, whether they refer to the same topic or not. This just makes finding desired information harder for the User.

In addition you are posting a general template banner, without reference to the number of footnotes already in the article, which is sometimes considerable. This is double-dipping, and frowned on.

--Vicedomino (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Johannes Agnoli
Hi Joe, you re-added the section headings I removed to Johannes Agnoli. I really don't see why it needs section headings, since it consists of just four paragraphs in addition to the lead. Basically, that's just giving each paragraph a name, which doesn't make any sense. The headings you added also don't make any sense to me. The whole article is a biography, so why have a section called biography. The "1957 politics" section also isn't about 1957.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. I was just plowing thru Category Articles needing sections and am not an expert on the subject. Feel free to CE the heck out of the article wherever needed. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

New version of 1.0 bot
Hi - I was thinking of having a brainstorming call on Skype or Zoom (or on IRC if people prefer), to plan out what we want from the WP1.0 bot. Do you think this would be a good idea? If so, then I'll mention it on the main talk pages. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * - my internet connection is a slow (Frontier isp) connection so I don't do any Skype or Zoom, or IRC. And have never used any of these. In 2014 when I retired as Computer Operations Specialist (after 40+yrs in computer industry), I started editing on Wikipedia just to "keep my buttons going". To organize writing of new bot, can a new WP page/non-article be started?
 * Talk page for that location would be a good central point for everyone involved. Sub-sections for  ==Members==  and  ==Bot specifications==  would be a good starting point.
 * As the project progresses I would be willing to help with the testing. It might be helpful to pick a small or inactive WikiProject for a test. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would expect to set up a WP discussion page, something like what we did last time - that page has quite a nice table! I just like sometimes to have a real-time discussion which can sometimes help you define the main issues in one short meeting, then move to a wiki discussion.  IRC  can be done with just a dialup connection (it was popular at the time the Berlin Wall came down!); I'll see if others would be OK with that. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - at Tip of the day/February 5 I found IRC info. & wondering how to use. Is this what we use for discussions? Or something else? — JoeHebda • (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes - that's it. It's been a while since I did one, but we used it a lot in 2005-2010 to hold real-time discussions.  I know Kelson always keeps an IRC window open, I think on the #offline channel.  I'll check up and get back to you. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting bots?
- Last night the Bot did not run again & I see that WikiProject Catholicism/Popular pages was updated at 00:16, 17 September 2018‎ Community Tech bot. Just wondering if this bot which starts on first day of each new month & already took 17days to get this far may be conflicting with WP 1.0 bot? Is it possible the WP bot is not broken? Just in need of co-running with other bots? This would explain randomness of it not running. — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Kelson may be able to comment on this; I really can't say, as I don't have a tech background. Walkerma (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Online meeting
Hello again! Would you be able to join us for a meeting on Thursday, October 18th at 1800h UTC (11am US Pacific Daylight Time)? We are using Jitsi, and if you have low bandwidth we can use it without video. User:Kelson tells me that he has used this often for talking with a colleague in Mali, where the internet is very spotty - he says you just have to ask everyone to disable the video part and it works well. We're having a meeting for people who use the bot regularly, in order to find out how best to design the new bot. We will continue to have the on-wiki discussions, but this is just a chance for us to get our plans organized. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * For Oct. 18th - that 11am Pacific, is 9am for my Central time, so Yes this will work. Two things: I am currently in the process of changing ISP & hoping to have completed by Oct.18th. 2) I've never used Jitsi & after visiting their site, do I download the Windows installer, then good to go? Lastly, I have a second, newer laptop which is more CPU, memory, etc. so I can attempt using that laptop instead. Also, is there any kind of audio needed? Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to download anything unless you plan to host the meeting, but I'll check. Also, the meeting will be at 1pm US Central (Daylight) Time - is that still OK for you?  I'm in US Eastern Time (upstate New York), and for me the meeting is at 2pm.  My laptop just uses the computer audio and that's fine.  Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, 1pm Central time is even better. I'm completely unfamiliar with Jitsi, so is there a chance to do a "test run" before? Or are there any connection instructions? Or U-tube video how-to-connect? Sometime before 2014 I did connect with "Go-to-meeting" a few times. Without any video/audio. JoeHebda (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that all I had to do was to go to the URL and click accept on the Audio (and I used video too). But I sometimes forget that I may have set up & used software five years before, so we should do a test run first - it would be good to be safe.  Would you be able to do that at 1pm Central Time on Tuesday? If not, can you suggest another time?  Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, ok for Tuesday 1pm Central time. A test run is great, as my laptop Lenovo E535 is the one I used at work (personal Laptop) so about 1/3 of windows services are disabled. However I did "re-find" Lenovo Communications utility so when I open, it activates camera,video, audio. Also Skype or any IRC chat was never installed. JoeHebda (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll meet at https://meet.jit.si/kiwix. Talk to you in about one hour! Walkerma (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm now on 5-Mb faster internet. Fixing a quick lunch now...back at 1pm. JoeHebda (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Tournesol.png|33px|link=]] Thank you for helping me test Jitsi conference connection. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Today's meeting will be at the same URL. I'll talk to you in a few hours! Walkerma (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Prior to discussion, I just posted several features for new bot here. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is link to Third generation WP1.0 bot page. JoeHebda (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ajay Bijli
I have make some change on the said article to fulfill the cleanup process of Wikipedia policy. Please let me know if require any changes. Note i am individual and new in Wikipedia struggling to understand the wiki policies. Regards --Plotterof (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Bot / category expert
User:Oleg Alexandrov has created a bot that harvests categories for entries in the math article lists. If he doesn't know how to fix the problem, he may know who can. &mdash; The Transhumanist  00:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Tournesol.png|33px|link=]] Thank you for your help :-) JoeHebda (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI - Oleg wrote the original WP1.0 bot we used from 2006-2009. Walkerma (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Dixit Dominus (Vivaldi)
Thanks for your question (when?) - I hope to get to it but have a few tasks with a deadline before that one, please be patient, or go by the sources (Hyperion for the first 2, IMSLP for the last) and add it. Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Why the move?
Hi Joe. Can I ask the purpose of this edit? Any particular reason why you felt the need to move the military history wikiproject to the top? MeegsC (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Greetings WP Military history has task force tags so it is moved to the top, before any WPs from those callouts. The nightly assessment bot (WP 1.0 bot) is having issues with repeating WP Military history multiple times. Details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history.
 * When an article has both WP Bio & WP Mil., WP Biography goes first & WP Military History second. This will help the bot process these two WPs.
 * There is an assessment bot bug (complicated) when the class= is different on a task force tagged WP and associated wikiproject.
 * Sorry for the length of this response. Hope this answers your question. JoeHebda (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So rather than fix the issue with multiple tags, the solution is just to boot MH to the top? Does that really fix the problem? Not sure what a "task force callout" is, but there doesn't appear to be any further banners from the MH project on this article. MeegsC (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Military history edit
At Talk:1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash, you added " ". Given that the even occurred in Greenland, did you intend to flag Southeast Asia?--Rpclod (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * In View history it shows my edit was Update: mv WP mh to top. Done to help WP 1.0 bot assessment issue with WP tags. I missed that SE Asia tag. Feel free to correct the Military history WP tag. Thanks. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No meeting
Joe - we will not be meeting to discuss the 1.0 bot today, because the others are unavailable. Also, we will not meet next week because of Thanksgiving. However, audiodude said he has begun testing on the Catholicism project, so work is progressing, albeit slowly. All the best, Walkerma (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - Thanks...For Nov. 29th I have eye-dr. appointment so will be gone....so will book for Thurs. Dec. 6th... Can always msg. on these talk pages :-) JoeHebda (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Bot
Can you give me the link where I describe how to find the alternative to update the WikiProjects into a table? I have bookmarked it on my laptop, but cannot find the link on my desktop. Adamdaley (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * - The link is here. You may need to page-down to final sub-section.
 * In addition, I just added article cleanup info at here for WP bio. JoeHebda (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Undoing of your recent edits
Hey, I just undid two of your edits about African military ranks. The reason is that both are in "Military ranks by country", being a subcategory of the one you added, and thus already included in the more specific one. ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * - Thanks for the feedback on two articles
 * Comparative army enlisted ranks of Africa
 * Comparative army officer ranks of Africa
 * I'm not familiar with category trees on this subject & wondering if you can help.
 * Do you think Category:Military in Africa and Category:Military history of Africa would be better? Or are there any better categories that you know of? Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Military in Africa would be better-suited for that. ...GELongstreet (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muhammad ibn Isa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khorasan ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Muhammad_ibn_Isa check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Muhammad_ibn_Isa?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) 09:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Unicode block articles
Hello there. I think the Unicode block articles should have a class of B. I'm willing to update them all for this. I don't think stub or start applies because most show the block itself and a history of the encoding process. I'm not sure what else there is to cover in them that isn't in other Unicode or writing system articles. DRMcCreedy (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, list class seems the most appropriate classification for these articles. I'll make the changes. DRMcCreedy (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.
Looks like our comments just got Archived into obscurity, but I do appreciate the clarification. I understand that the tools operate in their own environment, while Wikipedia operates in its own. My understanding is that "the bot" is a Wikipedia-hosted process that imports pages (such as the assessment tables) from the tools environment into the Wikipedia environment. Am I correct? I believe I was confused by the talk of a 3G bot ... which from my quick read, seemed to be a redo of the entire assessment infrastructure ... which includes the tools element, so I was taking "bot" to be the inclusive meaning, rather than the exclusive meaning of the tools->Wikipedia import facility alone.

Personally, I'm trying to dust of an old and largely abandoned WikiProject, and trying to clear off the cobwebs and get some of the machinery running again. It seems my timing is unfortunate, as the tools seem to be wildly unstable, and there is an open question of who own the bot (exclusive meaning), resulting in it being blocked. Perhaps you could help bring me up to speed on what's actually going on here?? I do have some observations on possible improvements, but I'm not quite sure where to direct them, and they seem to have been rolled off into the archives, never to be seen again. Perhaps I'm not in the right place.

BTW, the tools appear to have gone down again. (sigh) Old Rusty's in need of more oil and another kick.

Thanks again for your comments, looking forward to hearing more. LibraryGeek (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * - If you would like discussion about bot improvements here. There is a link to User talk:WP 1.0 bot/Third generation where new features are listed. Feel free to add more ideas. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)