User talk:MichaelMaggs/Archive/2021

All Tiers Regs (ran out of time)
Started updating this for the changes in SI 1572 but have run out of time this morning and have only managed to partially update bits of the article. Apologies for leaving this half done Tracland (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Tracland OK, I've done the majority of the article, but I'll leave it to you to update your new table at the bottom. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the new table should be done as I did that bit first. Just need to give some thought to how I present the changes in Hertfordshire. Currently got a footnote as it was the only solution I could think of but there might be a better way.Tracland (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and plan for latest SI
Looks like the same user has gone updated without the regulations or any sourcing which is going to be a pain to fix. I'll have a go at sorting out the changes by date table to ensure that this all correctly reflects the regulations once they are published and to reference each of the changes. Also at the same time I will change the description of the areas in this table to be the full council names (as per consensus on talk page). Are you happy to leave this section of the article alone and I'll update first thing tomorrow? Unless you need me to I will leave the rest of the article alone for you to make any other changes that are included in the latest regs. Also I will remove the references to 'Tier 5' that have been added today unless there is something in the regulations that mentions a tier 5 (I highly doubt there will be and suspect this was rouge unsourced editing) Let me know your thoughts.Tracland (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Tracland Yes, Thank you, that would be excellent. Assuming publication of some new regs tonight I'll check back in the morning and update anything other than changes to areas. I agree that the references to 'tier 5' appear to be speculative, but maybe they've been removed already? I haven't been following or checking the many changes that have been made to Local authority areas in each tier, by date and am more than happy to leave that to you! MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Tracland Thanks for the edits this morning. Will you be updating the main table also with the full local authority names? Whenever there's a change to the regs I normally do a Tweet - do you have a Twitter name I could mention?  MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I can do those updates too if it would help. I can do it now. Don’t have a Twitter handle that gets used but thanks for the thought. Tracland (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Tracland That would be great - thank you! MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Should now all be done but would be great if you could check that I haven't missed anything or messed anything up. Thanks. Tracland (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * : Will do. Thanks very much for doing that. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Si 8 /2021
I've updated and referenced the changes to areas (move everything to tier 4 as per the final para of the new regs). Looks like you are updating the restrictions on movement and further business restrictions so I will leave these alone unless there is anything you need my input on.

Thanks for the quick workTracland (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you, too. I've done the main current changes but haven't touched the changes by date tables at the bottom. I think these are the main things:

hould be deleted! MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All areas of England moved into a stricter tier 4.
 * Expiry date is moved on from 2 Feb to 31 March
 * No longer allowed to meet with one other person in an outdoor public place for “recreation” (exercise is still OK)
 * Outdoor sports gatherings no longer allowed for children (disabled people OK)
 * Not allowed to leave home to visit an outdoor zoo, wildlife attraction etc
 * Hospitality venues can no longer sell takeaway alcohol
 * New business closures: outdoor sportsgrounds and facilities, including outdoor gyms, sports courts, swimming pools, water sports, shooting and archery venues, golf courses, driving ranges; & retail travel agents
 * Retailers may no longer sell natural Christmas trees. I really shouldn’t have put it off. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pyrausta quadrimaculalis (Dognin,1908), Species of moth


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Pyrausta quadrimaculalis (Dognin,1908), Species of moth requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping - I saw the pages but didn't realise they were ShortDescBot-created. Not sure how that happened but I've stopped the bot and am looking into it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now fixed, and the two erroneous pages have been deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Praise from the Lords
Hi Michael, this is a few months old so you may have already seen it. But I was searching Hansard for references to Wikipedia, and came across this in a Lords debate on Coronavirus regulations:

I know you've been doing a lot of work on those pages, so thank you! the wub "?!"  14:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , : Oh, wow! Thanks for letting me know - I hadn't seen that. it's nice to know that things we're doing here are useful. Regards, MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Advice needed
I have just made this edit ; this is the second edit by User:Carchasm that I have reverted. Carchasam has recently made numerous similar edits. I am suspicious. Is he over-zealous or what? I need a second opinion. Thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a previous discussion on what I'm doing at ANI - the overwhelming consensus was that I was doing the right thing. Out of curiosity, any reason you reached out to someone else before just reaching out to me directly? &#32;- car chasm (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Carchasm, I am replying on your page, Rwood128 (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply to Carcasm Rwood128 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks both. As I see that you're discussing the issues I don't think there's anything I need to add. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

IP's endless efforts to get 'Simon Minter' into the encyclopedia
Dear IP editor, as you have already been told by multiple editors over a period of several years, notability here is based on the very specific concept of reliable sources. The number of followers someone has on YouTube is not a relevant fact, and neither is the amount of money they are alleged to have made. If you want this person to be included in the encyclopedia you need to work within its rules, not constantly try to sneak in mentions in every possible location you can think of. The way to establish notability and to allow him to be mentioned here and on your other favourite page, Berkhamsted School, is for you to work up a new page for this individual, supported by proper reliable sources. If your sources are good, the page will be accepted by the community, and you can link to it from pretty well anywhere you like. You can find details on how to do that at Help:Your first article, and if you need help you can ask at the Teahouse. By the way, threatening editors will not help your case; I'd avoid it. I'm posting this here in case you don't see responses that have been made to your current IP talk page. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I've just seen that a page Draft:Miniminter for this person was created, and that it has been rejected (multiple times) for lack of notability, most recently less than two weeks ago. I suggest you work on that draft. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Advice needed 2
Sorry to bother you again. But I'd like you to look at this, given a recent comment on Wuthering Heights, on your talk page, that you deleted. I simply don't feel qualified to deal with this nonsense. Rwood128 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ugh, yes. I have given a final warning, but given previous form I suspect this will continue until an admin issues a block. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Please edit impeachment with improvement in mind rather than rolling back
Hi Michael, please review the Wikipedia editing policy and try to improve articles. I understand many opinions exist in politics, this site tries to avoid relying on personal opinions for edits.

Wikipedia:Editing policy - This page in a nutshell: Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect. Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong" (try to fix it rather than delete it).

I feel you removed over 8,000 characters of improvement to accomplish an unknown small change in opinions about the topic. Please engage with me on the points you disagree with.

Reverting entire blocks of edit should be avoided until you’ve spoken to the editor about the issue you feel is contentious. I will have to re-install my hard work, and I am willing to listen to your suggestions for improvement. I would prefer we talk this through civilly and avoid a dispute resolution over bulk rollbacks on articles which have been flagged for improvement. I agree some areas in an ongoing trial are debatable, my comments rely on credible sources for this reason rather than advancing any opinions. If anything in my sources can be improved, let me know. I will gladly incorporate your improvements, but i can’t abide by the denigration of article quality by bulk and opinionated rollbacks.

I do subscribe to the Wikipedia “Revert only when necessary” policy and hope we can agree on the benefits of it. Basically, this policy consider the following edits to be bad:

“ Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad, and you do not have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest. (To do this, you can use the "undo" button, then type back in what you want to keep). If a supporter of the reverted edit wants to save more of it, that editor can re-edit in smaller pieces and the article can converge on a consensus version that way.”

Thank you. Frobozz1 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I and many others would be more than happy put in the effort to pick through the good faith edits of a truly new editor who might not have got things quite correct the first time. You on the other hand have come straight in with a huge swathe of edits (accompanied by perfectly-formatted citations) that you must know perfectly well are contentious. For an ostensibly new editor you seem strangely dismissive of those asking you to follow standard editing procedures. The entirety of your edits to the lead are unusable as they focus on your specific take on the Trump situation when the article is not about that at all. The lead has to cover the legal concept of impeachment in all jurisdictions, and the purported definition you added there was simply wrong. You've been told that clearly now by two editors: please be good enough to take your ideas to the article talk page, as requested. If you propose reasonable improvements to the article there, I will support them.MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing contentious about Supreme Court rulings, I am genuinely at a loss for what you are suggesting. The article literally was full of opinions and no citations, and Politico “breaking news” references. You re-installed a horrible article, which was also flatly incorrect. I am an expert on the matter, as well. Frobozz1 (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have responded at Talk:Impeachment. As you appear to be a single-purpose editor who has created a new username solely to present the US impeachment proceedings in your preferred light, I don't feel that much can be gained by a side-discussion here as well. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have waited patiently for any constructive recommendations from the aggrieved and not one single suggestion came to the fore. The only tool you and the others are proficient in, it would seem, is the rollback button, and you use it in the blind, never attempting discussion, never offering inline suggestions. You leave no possible remedy except to ignore your bullying. I patiently await constructive and cooperative suggestions, using credible and verifiable citations to content with my own - with cautious optimism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding this correspondence here for my own reference. No follow-up or response is required. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Strange error by ShortDescBot
ShortDescBot does great work, but in this case it described a flowering plant as a butterfly. There are some butterflies called Abronia (because they like plants in the genus Abronia) though probably none of them are "fragrans." Anyway, ShortDescBot might need help when a butterfly genus got named after a plant genus. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for letting me know. I think it's because the article is within Category:Butterfly food plants which is a subcategory of Category:Butterflies which the bot is working through. I clearly need to exclude that. I'll fix that and any others there may be. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The Hunting of the Snark

 * (Undid revision 1008712374 by Jordan Brown (talk) Unteresting, but this is anyalysis that needs to be supported by reliable sources - sorry)

It's not my analysis; it's transcribed word-for-word from a sister Wikipedia. But OK. Jordan Brown (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , The English and other Wikipedias can't be used in themselves as valid sources. You can see more at WP:UGC. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

ShortDescBot breaks redirects
I found this edit while looking through Special:ShortPages. It looks like the bot is adding the description before the redirect code instead of after the redirect code, which breaks the redirect. ~ Ase1este charge-paritytime 11:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. The bot is supposed to be avoiding redirects entirely, and I know that it's skipped many thousands so far. I'll dig a bit more deeply to see why it didn't catch that one. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Aseleste I see what happened. The bot did a staging run to generate the short description a couple of days ago, and in the meantime the page was moved and the old title converted to a redirect. I'll add an additional check for that before the next editing run. Thanks again for pointing it out. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for taking your time to fix it. ~ Ase1este charge-paritytime 11:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Subspecies/varieties
ShortDescBot labelled Pseudotsuga menziesii var. lindleyana and Triticum compactum erinaceum as species. They are respectively a variety and a subspecies. The majority of taxa ranked below species are using an automatic taxobox template; Subspeciesbox for animals, and Infraspeciesbox for plants, algae and fungi. Subspecies is the only recognized rank below species for animals; plants can be subspecies or varieties, and there will be varietas or subspecies in the Infraspeciesbox. For subspecies/varieties that are still using manual taxoboxes, there should be trinomial, subspecies or varietas (however, I've come across a few cases where subspecies is given under binomial; hopefully there aren't any remaining cases of that). Plantdrew (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks - that's very useful. I'll add some more tests to see if I can correctly identify more of those. I'm sure there are quite a few using Speciesbox, though, with inconsistency between infobox, lead text and category-based ranks. I might also experiment with title length, as these won't usually be one- or two-word titles. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

ShortDescBot
Bot broke a redirect with. Probably because it placed the template at the top of the page, which is fine for articles but not for redirects, in fact I don't understand why you would want a bot to add short descriptions to redirects at all. So I don't know how fast that thing is running, but if it's doing that to a very large number of redirects there's going to be a mess real soon here, anyway probably best if you address this before it ends up at WP:BOTN, thanks. 119.59.121.170 (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi - fixed: see two sections above. This should not happen any longer.  MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops I missed that, anyway there are some incidences that post-date that discussion including one just 3 hours ago. and . 119.59.121.170 (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi - I've fixed this. It shouldn't be editing redirects at all, and it's now looking for "#redirect" as well as the more usual "#REDIRECT". This should not happen any longer. Thanks for noting it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks for your prompt response. 119.59.121.170 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Another follow-up
See, , , , and , probably best if fixed promptly. 119.59.121.171 (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Have stopped the bot and will look at it again. Apparently my edit did not fix this issue. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, it seems I accidentally deleted a really obvious  statement, which I've now added back in. The bot output indicates that it made 6 of those errors in that last run, and I see you've fixed them already. Many thanks for that. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, just killing some time here and there by gnoming around, as before I apreciate your prompt response. 119.59.121.171 (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Othello reference
Hi Michael. You have, with good intention, reverted my edit to the Othello page for lack of references. You likely noted that text prior to my edit had a citation indicating that the first on screen portrayal of Othello by a black actor was in 1995. This may be true, so I have not refuted it in my edit. Rather, my edit notes that an on screen *adaptation* of Othello (directed by Dearden in 1961, and for which I provide links to other Wikipedia pages as evidence) cast a black actor--Paul Harris--in the role of Othello. I don't believe there is need for further citation than I have provided. If you would like me to edit my edit so that it simply notes that this adaptation preceded Lawrence Fishburn's portrayal, and not that it was the first major onscreen production to cast a black actor in the role (or adapted role) of Othello, I am happy to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.72.69 (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for engaging here. As I mentioned in my comments we can't I'm afraid keep this in unless a reliable external source can be supplied (links to other Wikipedia pages aren't accepted as 'reliable sources' for that purpose). If you could state where (outside Wikipedia) you sourced the information from, we may be able to keep it. If you're uncertain how to add a citation to the page, you could just provide a link and I'll happily fix it up for you. I'm not questioning that the facts are as you say - but we do need that source. Regards, MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Carex as "grass"
I came across several Carex articles where ShortDescBot had added the short description "species of grass" (e.g. . If "sedge" is too obscure, I'd be OK with "grass-like plant", but I don't think "grass" is appropriate for species in the family Cyperaceae. Plantdrew (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's becaused Category:Cyperaceae is listed as a subcategory of Category:Grasses, which it probably shouldn't be. I'll do a bot run to change the descriptions for that family. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , ✅. I've also removed Category:Cyperaceae from Category:Grasses. You might like to check whether some other category needs to be added instead. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

ShortDescBot & "single-celled organisms"
Hello,

I noticed that ShortDescBot added the description "XXX of single-celled organisms" to a bunch of oomycete genera and species on my watchlist. That is not really an accurate description for these though as they aren't single-celled organisms. For Achlya and Aphanomyces, a better short description might "genus of oomycetes" or "genus of water molds".

For Hyaloperonospora parasitica, Peronosclerospora miscanthi, Plasmopara penniseti, Pustula tragopogonis, and Sclerospora graminicola, a better description might be "species of plant pathogens".

Likewise, for Pustula, Wilsoniana, and Peronospora, a better description might be "genus of plant pathogens".

TelosCricket (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Hi, thanks for letting me know. I'll make the corrections, probably tomorrow, either manually or with the bot if multiple articles within a particular Wikipedia category are affected. It may be - as in the talk page section above - that some of the subcategories aren't in the correct parent category. Or it may just be a mistake of mine. I'm working through the category tree, so do feel free to let me know if you notice any particular category where the new descriptions aren't accurate. (I'm not touching any existing descriptions). MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , now ✅. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! TelosCricket (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Legumes is not a term used in botany anymore
Dear MM, I notice the shortdescbot is adding "species of legume" to many taxa. The term legume is now an informal term, it is rarely used in botany. The former huge family Leguminosae was renamed Fabaceae some decades ago, and that family is now split into 3: Caesalpiniaceae, Mimosaceae, and Fabaceae sensu stricto. Labelling these plants as "legumes" is only slightly better than labelling them as "plants". There is some consensus in Wikiproject Plants that labelling should follow the pattern "short description|species [or whatever] of plant [or tree or shrub, &c.] in the Such&such family [or higher if appropriate]". I do acknowledge the hard work people such as yourself are putting into short descriptions, I thank you all. Brunswicknic (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the feedback. I'm not wedded to any particular term, and chose 'legume' following this discussion with Plantdrew. If we can agree something better, I can do another bot run to change it, but bear in mind that short descriptions are intended to use common or popular names which normally won't correspond with the latest scientific nomenclature. WP:HOWTOSD recommends "avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject". A whole range of animals, for example, are labelled "fish" as that's what most people call them. We shouldn't be using family or other taxon names except where they are extremely well known as they don't comply with MOS:JARGON  or WP:HOWTOSD, and in some areas can change frequently and require constant updating.
 * What would you think about leaving 'legume' for Fabaceae, and changing Caesalpinioideae and Mimosaceae to something else? Those families don't so far as I can see have any well-used popular names, so they'd probably best be called "flowering plant" (or "tree" or "shrub" if any happen to be in the Trees or Shrubs categories, but both are severely underpopulated). The bot works category-by-category and is not attempting anything complicated like "Species of tree in the legume family": that would need to be done manually as a later individual improvement.  The aim is to rapidly fill in large numbers of missing descriptions, and in doing that the bot prioritises accuracy over sophistication. You can find more details if you're interested here. Regards, MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What would you think about leaving 'legume' for Fabaceae, and changing Caesalpinioideae and Mimosaceae to something else? Those families don't so far as I can see have any well-used popular names, so they'd probably best be called "flowering plant" (or "tree" or "shrub" if any happen to be in the Trees or Shrubs categories, but both are severely underpopulated). The bot works category-by-category and is not attempting anything complicated like "Species of tree in the legume family": that would need to be done manually as a later individual improvement.  The aim is to rapidly fill in large numbers of missing descriptions, and in doing that the bot prioritises accuracy over sophistication. You can find more details if you're interested here. Regards, MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Several points made by Brunswiknic are incorrect. There are 8 plant families that have approved alternative names that don't have the standard -aceae ending (Leguminosae being the one under discussion here). These non-aceae names have fallen out of fashion, but are not incorrect. Five of the popular names I suggested are based on anglicizing one of the non-aceae names; legume, palm, composite, crucifer and umbellifer (though I'm not sure that the last three are particularly recognizable to the general public). Legume remains the technical botanical term for the type of fruit/seedpod produced by most plants in the legume family, and legume continues to be used as a non-technical name to refer to the entire family. The most recent classification of the family was published by a group of scientists who've dubbed themselves the "Legume Phylogeny Working Group". Regardless of whether legumes are considered to be one family with three subfamilies or three separate families, "legume" refers to the same group of plants. However, the traditional division of the legumes into three groups is outdated; the LPWG recognizes six families; four "new" ones, with the long-recognized Mimos(oideae/aceae) subsumed in the Caesalpin(oideae/aceae). Plantdrew (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey man, ShortDescBot got one a bit wrong...
Take a look here WRT the Tres Marías amazon article. The bot marked it as a subspecies. It's been promoted to a full species now. --Iloveparrots (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , the bot does its best when Wikipedia itself is uncertain, which is quite often for articles on questionable or recently-changed subspecies. The lead for that one actually starts "Many authorities consider it a subspecies ...". If you come across individual things like that, the best thing to do is to update the short description manually with something better. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Will do that. Wasn't sure if I was going to end up edit warring with a bot if I changed it to 'species'... --Iloveparrots (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see you recently updated the taxobox in that article from subspecies to species. Might be worth checking any similar articles as well, if you've recently done others. The bot will never touch any manual edits you make. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

ShortDescBot
The bot is adding "Extinct genus of reptiles" for dinosaurs. I believe that it should instead be adding "Genus of dinosaurs" because the most common term for dinosaurs is dinosaurs. Thank you. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 19:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , you're right about that of course. The problem for a bot is accurately identifying those articles that are truly about what most people would call dinosaurs. Wikipedia's Dinosaur category is a bit of a mess. Among other things, it includes all of the extinct and living birds, many animals that cross over between birds and reptiles, and groups that still have living representives. And it misses out large numbers of articles that should be included, but are in the Reptile or Lizard categories. Although it would be easy enough to exclude obvious bird articles, the dinosaur categorisation error rate is still unacceptably high. While 100% accuracy is never achievable, I've preferred higher accuracy with 'reptile' rather than a very significant and obvious error rate with 'dinosaur'. That being said, I agree that the more specific term would be better, and I'll have another look over the next few days to see if I can find a better way of labelling at least the more obvious ones. If I can, I'll do another bot run to add them. Regards, MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I get that. Manually it would be very tedious of course. But who's to blame for adding 1427 short descriptions to election articles? (That was, um... me.) 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  09:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , the bot is just now updating 1000+ dinosaur articles with improved short descriptions. As the bot is not overwriting descriptions that editors have added manually, it won't be touching articles where someone has manually copied over the Wikidata decription - usually "Genus of reptile (fossil)". MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see that you underestimated the number of organism articles. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  10:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I estimated based on the number of infoboxes, but there are quite a few articles still without one. Haven't finished yet! MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Short description for ions
Hello! I have checked your SD to the chembox articles. Looks fine :-) except for two which in matter of fact are chemical compounds. (Strychnine and Ammonium perfluorononanoate) - but the manually added SD is not wrong - therefore, I will not revert it. Is there a quick way to see an articles SD? Christian75 (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for checking that. By far the easiest way to see and edit short descriptions with the desktop interface is to install the Shortdesc helper gadget, which can be done via preferences. It's very useful! Alternatively, you can edit the page in the normal way with the wikicode editor. Manual short descriptions always appear within a template at the very top of the page. A default infobox description  (such as "Chemical compound") doesn't use the manual template but is visible using the gadget. Any infobox default can be overriden by adding a manual template, either with the gadget or by manually editing the page. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ... And thanks for the gadget tip. I've installed it, and it works fine :-). Christian75 (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Almost a week
It's been almost a week since you did a bot run, why not? If at last, the bot has finished its third task, then why does its userpage still state the task is ongoing? Also what pronouns does the bot use? I use "it" for the bot, please let me know if the bot prefers something else. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , the lockdown restrictions here have recently been relaxed and I took the opportunity to get away from home for a few days. Regarding pronouns, as the bot isn't sentient and doesn't care, "it" will do very well. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple short descriptions
At Vesicularia montagnei, ShortDescBot added two short descriptions in different edits within the same minute. Would it be possible to set up a tracking category for articles that have more than one short description? Plantdrew (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for spotting that. That's unexpected, as immediately before each edit the bot checks that there's no existing SD; if there is, it skips the page. My guess is that it's something to do with Pywikibot's caching, as it seems to be designed to allow the program to continue running while waiting for an edit to complete. If two quick edits are made to the same article, it may be accepting the second before completing the first, and without waiting for the program to tell it that the second should actually be skipped. I've checked the log for that particular run, which covered a variety of categories including Category:Mosses and Category:Aquatic plants. Out of 4048 edits, it 9 added duplicate SDs which I've now corrected manually. I'm afraid I don't know how to set up a tracking category, but this must be a pretty rare issue. I'm running a script over all of the bot's logs now, and if it turns out there were any others I'll fix those as well. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ No others found apart from those 9. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Bot descriptions for biographies
PearBOT 5 has finally finished running adding a bit over 100,000 descriptions in the end. After checking what biographies are left I think I could without too much effort (but a lot of testing) make it do about 100,000 more with room for further expansion. The question now is if I should do this development work or let your bot take care of them. What is the development status, how large proportion of articles do you think it can deal with and how will the description quality be? --Trialpears (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , that sounds good. I've mostly paused the development of ShortDescBot while PearBOT has been running (in case I was left with nothing to do!). Happy to do more, but if you are able to do another 100k easily I'd have no objection. My approach, with an intermediate staging spreadsheet stage, has proved effective at maintaining a low error rate while avoiding the need to skip target articles, but it is inevitably rather time-consuming. Maybe you could do your next suggested run, and I'll have a look again to see if I can sweep up any more? There will be a fair number of articles that are impossible by bot, though, especially people who are known for multiple roles or jobs. Are you looking at historic (non-BLP) biographies, too? If not, perhaps I could do those. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will run it on historical biographies as well. The main reason I haven't is simply that it's more annoying to generate the list and that I haven't modified the date code to do deaths. I plan on further developing PearBOT then and we'll see how far it goes. While we're at it, what do you think about descriptions for officeholders? Like you said at BOTN, SDDATES says the period in office should be given in the description. This is not feasible (at least with my method) by bot. Is it preferable to generate a description without dates, with birth and death dates or no description at all? --Trialpears (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , it should be possible to code up start and end dates for officeholders, at least where unique dates are listed in the infobox, but it would be better to omit them if essential rather than use birth/death dates - that would definitely be confusing. If you're going to do all types of biography I won't spend more time developing ShortDescBot to work in that area. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My concern with trying to get the in office dates is that it could give errors like giving Obama the description "American president from 2005 to 2008" if it parses the years he was a senator. Many notable politicians have held multiple offices or missed a term or something making the possibilities for errors a lot larger than elsewhere. --Trialpears (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

She (A history of adventure)
I added that the 1984 movie is an adaptation/sort of of this too because both the 1984 movie's wikipedia page mentions this and I think the 1965 one too. I mean if those two say it without source, why were were those not removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.236.100.169 (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's OK to add sourced information, but not the unsourced statement that the film "bears only minimal resemblance to the books". I've added back a mention of the film, without that. It's probably also worth adding that the film was apparently released in 1985, in spite of the title referring to 1984. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Restore the List of murder convictions without a body edit
Hi MichaelMaggs, I reverted what you edited and cited sources. Thanks for the message.NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Does the newspaper not counted? NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The Straits Times from Singapore was a credible news source, and it was cited in many Singapore-related wiki articles NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I did cited sources to support my edit NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize - I did not realise when I looked at your Singapore edit in wikicode view that you had wikilinked the names in the first two columns. I am so sorry. Do please feel free to add it back, or I can do it for you if you prefer. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's okay. I was just now really shocked that everything I put in turned to ground zero when I saw you reverted my edits again, and I thought that I did not include a more credible source. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyways, thanks and its good to know you, MichaelMaggs. Without your reminder, I might not know what mistake I made NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate your comment. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

White House
You got in seconds before me. I was at that very moment attempting to revert my edit since an edit war is not going to help my case. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The last children of Tokyo, Tawada, 2018.png
Thanks for uploading File:The last children of Tokyo, Tawada, 2018.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) 17:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Ooh, thanks! MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Response to your message
Hi MichaelMaggs,

If you read the Balloon Release page you'll see that these little scraps of plastic and rubber do nothing but wreak havoc on both domesticated animals and wildlife, and even on human lives as well, wherever they come to Earth.

Someone from the balloon industry insists on casting the idea of releasing many balloons at once in a romantic or festive light. Of course these releases appear very pretty and exciting on the face of it, but they are devastating in their effects once the balloons fall to Earth once more.

I'm merely removing the commercially motivated mischaracterization of balloon releases as fun or romantic, because of their terrible consequences. As you can see if you just skim down the page, not only are many disastrous results recorded, but may organizations stand in opposition to these thoughtless and environmentally devastating events.

I don't know why you keep reversing my edits - I'm taking my own time to set this right. Please tell me how I can make these changes permanent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettt (talk • contribs)

Please reply as soon as you can, I'm feeling very frustrated and worried about this.
 * Hello, while I entirely sympathise with your view, and agree that balloon releases can have devastating consequences, Wikipedia tries to be neutral and to base its articles not on what you or I may think is morally right, but on what is discussed in reliable sources. In order to counteract what you describe as mischaracterizations of balloon releases as fun or romantic, you'd need to find and cite published reliable sources that make that argument. Several are already mentioned on the page, and simply deleting opposing views does not make for a neutral article. By the way, when you post a message on a talk page, remember to sign off with ~ , as that automatically adds a signature. Regards, MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Arrgh - MichaelMaggs, would you leave a comment saying that torture and murder is ok? Because that's what these releases are. The worst thing they do is kill countless aquatic animals, who think they are jellyfish or other edible things, then they die, slowly, of starvation. There is NO justification for this. How many sea turtles must die to make this frivolous practice indefensible? If you don't care about the increasing amounts of trash in our oceans, or about the terrible effects on animals, I'd request someone from Wikipedia who does care step in. It's not fair that an industry shill would be allowed to promote something so destructive. There's got to be a way to remove all that trash about how romantic and wonderful it is, because that's not neutral, it's untrue. Please. Also, no offense, but please tell me who you are at Wikipedia. I need to know whether I'm speaking with someone who actually works for Wikipedia and not just another citizen making their own edits. Thanks. ~ Bettt (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs, are you there? Bettt (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is, some people do like doing balloon releases and don't care about the consequences. As a result, there are companies that exist to supply them. We have to report those facts neutrally, even if we don't like them. As I say, I agree with you that the practice is disgraceful, but that's my opinion, and neither I nor you can edit Wikipedia to reflect the world as we might like it to be. It's in my view neutral to say, as the article does, why certain people do this. It would not be neutral to allow companies to use Wikipedia to promote their services, but I don't think the page does that. Likewise, it is not for Wikipedia to suppress the fact that balloon releases are (still, unfortunately) pretty popular. In answer to your question, neither I nor any other editor "works at Wikipedia"; we are all volunteer editors, just like you are. Decisions on this and all other issues are generally made by consensus. You might like to open a discussion on the Balloon release talk page about how the article could be improved, or you can seek more detailed editing advice at the Teahouse. You'll find they are very friendly there. Good luck. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi again MichaelMaggs, So if I just give references and justifications for my edits, is that ok then? I'm going through and providing links to prove what I'm saying. Also - don't you think that the bit about "quiet, prayerful group activity at a funeral or solemn occasion" or "in celebration, as a substitute to confetti, in order to avoid an immediate mess." are not only gag-inducing, but entirely subjective? There's nothing prayerful about wholesale slaughter of wild animals by starvation and I believe I should be able to edit that text to say so. Of course as long as I provide links to either journalistic or legitimate environmental group sources to back up what I'm saying. Am I on the right track here? If you would, and if you have the time, would you please stay with me as I figure out how to do this? I'm doing a partial edit right now and would like your input on it when it's done. I'll publish it and you can see how that looks to you. Bettt (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs, I provided sources for what I was saying and added the edit field you asked for. I hope this fixes the problems you had. I'm assuming you do not want the page for balloon releases to give the impression that there is no harm associated with these things, as the original did. Thanks, Bettt (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs, was it you who set that awful warning on my talk page? If so please tell me why, and if not, please tell me who did.

Anyway, I did what you asked. You wanted sources and a statement about my edits, and I gave them.

And why shouldn't the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's image of the bird entangled in the ribbons go first before the pretty but deceptive image of the colorful balloons against the bright blue sky on their way to choke some sea turtles?

Certainly you don't think it's balanced for the first thing people to see is the current fertilizer about how wonderful these horrorshow balloon releases are. Bettt (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bettt, the name of the editor leaving messages is always given in their signature, right at the end of their post. The message you mentioned was posted by an editor called Code Pending, but I see there have now been several others as well. You may find the concept of neutrality different from what you expect, but it is an essential feature of the encylopedia, and must be followed. It's simply not acceptable for an article to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that something is "regrettable and irresponsible". You've been given multiple warnings, and if you are not to find yourself blocked for disruption you should follow my advice above and open a discussion about this on the article's talk page, Talk:Balloon_release. You are allowed (with reason) to make any argument you like there to see if you can obtain consensus from other editors as to how the article can be improved. I strongly advise that you don't make any further edits to the article itself unless and until you have gained gained agreement from other editors first on the talk page. If you work collaboratively there you may well find there are options for improving the article. That's what Wikipedia is all about. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Eeny meeny miny moe
the version of Eeny Meeny Miny Moe I included is consistent with the other versions mentioned in this section. It is cited with a link to a newspaper article referencing the version I posted. Dgen (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on your talk page, the wording you added is not supported by the source, and neither is the reference to the 1980s. The wording must be fully supported by the source, not just "consistent with the other versions". Regards, MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of One potato, two potato
Hello! Your submission of One potato, two potato at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pamzeis (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

neutrality is not just reitering past and updated vocabulary
Hi MichaelMaggs, for the sake of neutrality, I added references from the newest research concerning female husbands, The Mary Hamilton case is still being described using description dating from the 18th century, but there are new academic sources studying these themes who do not reiterate the past vocabulary (just as we have to be careful in cases of with hunts and trial with the vocabulary and descriptions used to decribe witches who were tried in the Middle Ages). I appreciate you correcting my English, but I still maintain Hamilton should not be described as a "fraud" in the lead. This is not neutral in formulation IMO, it is a judgemental view. As this person identified and was even at one point married as Charles Hamilton, one cannot but avoid this name in the lead, while at the same time mentionning the prosecution and subsenquent punishment. the rest of the article, focusing only on cases of prosecutions of female husbands, while ignoring the cases where there were no punishments, was not very accurate and I added information that is accurately referenced.Nattes à chat (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Nattes à chat, I'm happy to see some more recent sources being used to improve this article, and I don't have any objections to the changes you've made to the lead. There are just a couple of things, though. You shouldn't amend direct quotations; and you need to check carefully for typos (I've counted at least 15 obvious ones so far!). The way I do it is to copy the whole text into a Word processor and get the computer to highlight all the words it thinks may be wrong. Also, I'm not sure it's accurate to describe the marriage as 'legal': it wasn't according to the law at the time, hence the penalty. It might be more accurate to say that they 'went through a ceremony of marriage'. Anyway, it's good to have this article improved MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again Nattes à chat. A lot of 'female husband' material you've been adding to Mary Hamilton (transvestite) seems to cover an important social phenomenon that's notable enough to have a separate article of its own, rather than being squashed into a page on a specific historical person. I hope you like the new Female husband page and that you can help develop it further. All the best, MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw it thank you so much! I translated Mary Hamilton in French by the way and I saw that you wrote female husband. I have a hard time translating that expression in French, looking for French sources on the subject too! Now I am reading "Feminine masculinity" which adresses the phenomenom and also "how" to write about it and what kind of terminology to use, because while working on Mary Hamilton, this was the main hurdle. I am really starting to dig in the subject historically, it is fascinating. Anyway thanks for the conversation and the help, really appreciated! Nattes à chat (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the note. I now have access to Manion's book and when I get time I'll work on this some more. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! I also have True Sex: The Lives of Trans Men at the Turn of the Twentieth Century from emily Skidmore, and a French book called Genres fluides by Clovis Maillet, plus Female Masculinities from Jack Halbertstam. I have n ot finished reading everything yet. Nattes à chat (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I also stumbled upon this https://face2faceafrica.com/article/fascinating-history-africas-female-husbands. Nattes à chat (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for One potato, two potato
Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Adèle and Co, Yates, US first edition 1931.png


The file File:Adèle and Co, Yates, US first edition 1931.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Despite the claim given if the non-free use rationale for this file, this appears to be a case of WP:DECORATIVE non-free use per WP:ITSHISTORIC, WP:NFC and WP:NFC. There's no sourced critical commentary to support the claim that this an 'historically-important cover design' and File:Adele & Co dustjacket 1942.jpg is currently being used in the main infobox of the article for primary indentification purposes. There's no need for two non-free cover art files for the same book to be used unless it the alternative or former cover is itself the subject of sourced critical commentary to satisfy WP:NFCC. If someone wants to find and add source content, then that's fine; however, the file doesn't satisfy NFCC#8 as it's currently being used, which means it fails WP:NFCC."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No objections. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:The last children of Tokyo, Tawada, 2018.png


The file File:The last children of Tokyo, Tawada, 2018.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Despite the claim given if the non-free use rationale for this file, this appears to be a case of WP:DECORATIVE non-free use per WP:ITSHISTORIC, WP:NFC and WP:NFC. There's no sourced critical commentary related to the cover art of the first English edition of the book and File:Kentoshi.jpg is currently being used in the main infobox of the article for primary indentification purposes. There also doesn't seem to be anything particularly historic about this particular cover art at all. So, there's no need for two non-free cover art files for the same book to be used unless it the alternative cover is itself the subject of sourced critical commentary to satisfy WP:NFCC. If someone wants to find and add source content, then that's fine; however, the file doesn't satisfy NFCC#8 as it's currently being used, which means it fails WP:NFCC."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No objections. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MCQ § File:The Moving Toyshop, 1st edition cover, 1946.jpg
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § File:The Moving Toyshop, 1st edition cover, 1946.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No objections. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Short description
Thank you for adding them, but if not the one from Wikidata is taken, - it's not that there's no SD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda Arendt, there really is no Wikipedia short description unless one is added. (If you are using the short description gadget, the Wikidata description is displayed but that's not actually added to the page, or used anywhere). Previously, mobile devices used the Wikipedia-specific short description where one existed, and the Wikidata text where it did not. Late year, use of Wikidata text to characterise Wikipedia content was discontinued. Mobile devices now display the Wikipedia short description if it exists, and display nothing if it does not. So now, if there is no short description actually on the Wikipedia page nothing is ever displayed to readers. You can find details at Short_description. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explainin, and sorry that I took the edit summary too literally. I understand that mobile readers deserve service also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Summons, AEW Mason, cover, 1920.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Summons, AEW Mason, cover, 1920.jpg. 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) 00:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Expected and agreed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

How does a "weasel word" tag get finally removed from an article
I assisted in creating an article. It was then tagged with the "weasel word" caution. I removed all weasel words and other editors did also. Now, how does the tag finally get removed? Is it done by a search engine, or does a person have to do it?
 * this has been answered at the Teahouse, please do not ask the same question in more than one place. TSventon (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see that your original question at the Teahouse is no longer there. In case you missed the reply before it disappeared, it's here: . MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know it was vandalism when i changed the village pump sorry i just meant to said i didn't mean it anymore i won't do that again if it is vandalism sorry
Sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalaa324 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Wren Day edit
Sorry if I came across badly in my edit summaries. I was very frustrated and I'll explain why. A verse of the lyrics to the same song (just a different variant) is already in the article. What I added was simply a different version of the song which happens to be in Irish not English, and is far more obscure and less likely to be copyrighted than the lyrics that were already there. I think it's crucial to include this version, because the Irish version predates the English version, but that's beside the point. Joe Heaney never released the song commercially and I don't think anyone ever has in Irish. He was recorded singing the lyrics once, and someone wrote them down. If the length of the excerpt is an issue, I'd be happy to simply include the refrain (with the translation), so it wouldn't be any longer than the lyrics that were already there. Sdoknfonfosijogij (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The critical problem is that the text you want to add is not in the public domain. It's not true that it's "less likely to be copyrighted"; it very probably is. It is allowed to quote a very few words without infringing copyright (there's no defined cutoff, but many people work to no more than 10), but it won't work to include even the refrain. I'll add what I can myself, so you can see what I'd do, but I strongly recommend you don't add more. To prove public domain status you'd need to find some pre-1926 publication, such as this document which discusses the tradition on the Isle of Man but unfortunately does not give a Manx version. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Old English spelling of "wes hal"
Hello! I noticed you reverted an edit of mine on the article on wassailing. I've went and fetched a citation of the Old English spelling of the greeting "hāl wes þū", also "wes þū hāl" and put the edit back up. You're absolutely right that I should've cited the first time. I could "cite" that I know the language but that doesn't hold up, so I grabbed a real citation.72.200.109.242 (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've completely re-written the section, with better sources. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced additions to Committee on Standards in Public Life including BLP info
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Committee on Standards in Public Life, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Where sources are still needed they can easily be added, and indeed I see that's already been done by another editor this morning. You've been here a long time and should know very well what the D in WP:BRD stands for. Where your bold deletions of large parts of the article have been reverted, your next step is to go to the talk page, not to re-revert. I would be more than happy to discuss any queries you may have. One particular point you might like to explain (there, not here please) is your basis for using "undue" (presumably a reference to WP:UNDUE) as a kind of catch-all reason for deleting content. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia
Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny Associate Professor Hanyang University If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution
Hi. I see in a recent addition to The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Entry to Venues and Events) (England) Regulations 2021 you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No objection to that addition, but there are a lot of articles on English Coronavirus statutory instruments, with many hundreds of references between them. You might like to look at the others as well. The text is summarised rather than copied, though as these are legal documents perhaps more closely than the paraphrase of a typical article. In case it may not be clear, the tables are not copied from the legislation, they are my own summaries, with references to the (very much more complicated) legislative wording where applicable. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Creator Economy
Hi Michael, thanks for making some edits to the page I created. To be honest, I was surprised there wasn't a page already given how much it is in the news. I'd love it if more people edited the page and made it worthy of the subject. I don't think it's been reviewed yet. Is this something you can do? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I was just making some small changes, but I'm afraid I wouldn't feel comfortable doing a formal review. Sorry. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok no problem :) MaskedSinger (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Quitclaim
Hi Michael, thanks for your excellent contributions on Quitclaim Deed this afternoon. Did you by any chance in the process come across anything relevant to my question on the talk page about considerations? Getting curious now. --Doric Loon (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Doric Loon, that was what got me interested. Not sure I have a definite answer yet, but will get back to you. More changes still to make. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've replied at Talk:Quitclaim. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)