User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 5

User:RMCD bot has a log somewhere?
Hi Wbm1058. Just lately I needed to search through the December history of WP:RMTR to see if a certain page had been moved through a request there. (The person who did the move did not clearly document why, but hinted that a move request was involved). While doing so it occurred to me that if RMCDbot made a log of its actions, I could quickly check if there was a related RM, even though that's not not exactly the problem that I was having at RMTR. So, is there a log that the bot makes in its daily work that shows where the discussions are, or the names of the pages proposed for moving?

A follow up to our conversation from 2013, wanting permanent links to closed AN3 reports: User talk:Wbm1058/Adding permalinks to block log entries. I solved this for my own use by putting the diff of my AN3 closure in the block message, when I post on the user's talk. For instance here. This still doesn't get the link to the report into the actual block log, but it makes it easier to find things later. And the diff survives any archiving that the user may do of his own talk. The link still works after the AN3 report is archived.

Since we last talked about this, you've made further progress in the area of RMTR, since you now get the rationale into the edit summary. Very convenient! Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

—wbm1058 (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The bot doesn't create any long-term logs, but Requested moves/Article alerts includes a list of recently closed discussions, and there are two archives of that – maintained by :
 * 2) * Requested moves/Article alerts/Archive, September 2016 and earlier
 * 3) * Requested moves/Article alerts/Archive 2, September–December 2016
 * See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Archive and search. In response to that I intend to implement a new search box on that page. More powerful searching techniques from the group at WMF tasked with implementing the "discovery knowledge engine" would help with that, though.
 * Is that helpful, or is there something else more specific I could work on that would be better?
 * 1) It's been a long time since I looked at blocking. I've kept in on my talk page though, it's near the top. I generally avoid archiving stuff that hasn't been resolved. I didn't have the admin tools when I worked on this, but now I have them doing technical work in this area should be easier. Would you like me to see what I can do to put permalinks in the block log?
 * 2) Actually, putting the RMTR rationale in edit summaries was the work of others. They also created the sub-template Template:RMassist/core, which leaves less template-code clutter on the RMTR page. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 29.
 * You could also search the bot's edit summaries for the month of December. wbm1058 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a delayed reply: thanks for your last suggestion! That would certainly work. In the case I needed this for, the person made the move for other reasons, and I should have just asked them first. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that
Regards: Velocity-addition formula I'm new. The subsection was already hidden; I've been doing my best to fix it. Should the warning have gone just above the subsection? Kebl0155 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Kebl0155, you should choose the most appropriate template from the selection at Template messages. More specifically one of those at Template messages/Cleanup.
 * Offhand, I'd say that would be a good one to use. Sorry, I didn't go the extra mile to replace your template with that one. The problem is that multiple issues is intended to be a "sandwich template" that wraps two or more maintenance templates inside it, and I patrol for cases where that template is used improperly. It's fine to put in the hidden section as long as it's not triggering an error. I see that an earlier bot edit had incorrectly attempted to replace your custom template with one of the standard ones, see this diff. I think maybe the template had been substituted.  FYI. wbm1058 (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not a bot. I patrol for template coding in articles.  Usually, it is a cut/paste.  I use the template the editor was trying to add as I've gotten yelled at in the past for not doing that.  Bgwhite (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bgwhite, oops sorry, I temporarily got you mixed up with your bot. You were in "human bot" mode, or whatever label you want to put on it. I've done it too. Best, wbm1058 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again my apologies for my rookie error. Sorting out the symbolisation on that entire page was my first editorial contribution to this excellent site. My intent was to warn readers that serious problems remained with that particular section, which was true at the time I added the template. I looked for, but didn't find, template guidance;  I ended up having to do a google search for "this page has issues" and copied and pasted a template on a page I found there, with modifications. It was the best I could do, having spent 12 hours of continuous effort to make sure all minus signs were correct and symbols were consistent. I am very grateful for the template guides you have linked above. Respectfully, Kebl0155 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Various Akitas...
Very much appreciate the additional tidy-up, many thanks. I knew I would have missed something... Yunshui 雲 水 16:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Yunshui. It appears that you were able to hist-merge content that had previously only been cut-paste merged. wbm1058 (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Your Recent Reply
Please don't be rude to us. We're only trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keznen (talk • contribs) 18:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. One of my comments wasn't directly intended for you. wbm1058 (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Speedwell Forge Mansion
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Speedwell Forge Mansion&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Your revert at Shen Dzu
Hi. You recently reverted an edit of mine at Shen Dzu. The reason I placed the redirect was because many newspapers and other media use the term "Holy Pig". I am trying to make it easier for other readers to find the article. Which form of redirect do I use, please? DrChrissy (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I created the Holy pig redirect for you. If you want to make it a Proper Name as well, feel free to create Holy Pig. Just copy and paste the contents of Holy pig. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Great! - many thanks. DrChrissy (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Rookie question
Dear Wbm1058,

I'm new as a contributor on Wikipedia and have a question regarding this requested move. I saw you removed my request and labelled your revision 'discuss'. What does that exactly mean in this case and what happens now regarding the requested move?

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Cercatrova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cercatrova1554 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's listed for discussion on the page Talk:Protestant Cemetery, Rome, and also listed on WP:Requested moves. After a week, someone will determine the consensus and close the discussion. wbm1058 (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's helpful. Cercatrova1554 (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

wali
If the Wali article is devoted exclusively to Islamic saints shouldn't there be another article for Wali as Islamic guardian of women and underaged?

Google: wali guardian marriage and you get "About 278,000 results"

BoogaLouie (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I made an edit to the disambiguation. Didn't find much coverage of this meaning in the Arabic Wikipedia (see ar:ولي_الأمر). Feel free to add sourced Islamic-specific content on this topic. wbm1058 (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Have created a Wali (Islamic legal guardian) article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move: Using "El Chapo"
Hi, I wanted to reach out to you regarding a title change discussion in Joaquín Guzmán's talk page. You were involved in a previous change there in 2015. I'd love to read your input. Thank you! ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 15:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hat-trick intro
Hi. Your revert restored the word "brace" to the intro. Could you go through the article and provide references for the word "brace" in the text? Without references in the text the word does not belong in the intro. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, done. You can also easily find news articles using the term, e.g. like this – wbm1058 (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Planys-logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Planys-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Robert Brown (botanist) disambiguation
Thanks for your effort disambiguating links to Robert Brown (botanist). If you're up for doing more, there are a couple more strings that represent easy cases.


 * 1) Replace "authority = R. Br." with "authority = R.Br." (space between R. and Br. wasn't caught in your previous pass, space doesn't need to be preserved). Stylidium violaceum has this pattern.


 * 1) Replace "authority = (R.Br.)" with "authority = (R.Br.)" (parentheses around R.Br. weren't caught previously, parentheses do need to be preserved). Banksia fraseri has this pattern.

There's also likely a few (R. Br) with both parentheses and a space. And there's some variation in spacing around the equal sign; some taxoboxes have extra spaces for padding so the equal signs all are justified into the same column (e.g. Banksia sphaerocarpa), and occasionally spaces are stripped out. If you can make AWB ignore white space characters that could catch these. Plantdrew (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Plantdrew, I picked up 31 more that had a space between R. and Br. The ones with parentheses didn't fail my search criteria, so I got those on the first pass. Down to 328 left to go now. wbm1058 (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting those. OK, I had a major brain fart and misidentified the reason for some articles continuing links to "Robert Brown (botanist)" while totally overlooking that you'd already fixed it in the taxobox and running text. It's not the parentheses or spaces; Banksia fraseri has an undisambiguated link in the authorlink parameter of a reference template. I think it's safe to assume any article that has R.Br as an authority in the taxobox and an undisambiguated authorlink would be safe to fix with AWB. Plantdrew (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I got all the pages that had a link to [ [R.Br.]] on them. Now down to 225. Bed time for me. wbm1058 (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for working on these. Plantdrew (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just 40 left now. wbm1058 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, fantastic job. Plantdrew (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Symmetric multiprocessing
A discussion you may be interested in is at Talk:Symmetric multiprocessing - I see you had to choose when dabbing a link. Widefox ; talk 15:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Help needed with a messy move
Talk:Carbon reactions (photosynthesis) has gone from messy to messier, and I don't want to make it messier still.

Could you check whether any of the unreverted out-of-process edits are going to cause the macros or bots problems?

Suggestions as to what should be fixed and how welcome. Andrewa (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Andrewa, thanks for the notice. I reverted two of their edits. Sorry I can't be much help with the content; it's a topic area that I'm not familiar enough with to be useful in sorting that. wbm1058 (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Me too re the content area... it badly needs some help from specialists IMO. My hope was just that you'd be able to put the process back on track if necessary so that the bot and macros are happy, to remove that distraction, and I gather that's now under control. Thanks again.
 * My reverting an out-of-process move helped I hope, but I didn't know whether it was enough. I see that you've reverted the change to the proposed move target, I thought of doing that too as it's modifying a signed comment by another user, but knew I was out of my depth re the consequences to RM process automation (ie bot and macros - which work really well when the instructions are followed). Andrewa (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Malayalam Wikipedia
Hi,

I found your comment on Malayalam Wikipedia on Jimbo's talk page, and I thought I might reach out to you since I edit on Malayalam Wikipedia. There is a state sponsored wiki called Schoolwiki, which features articles written by school children from Kerala. Sarvavijnanakosam is not exactly a competitor for Malayalam Wikipedia, since its license was changed to GNU Public Document License 1.2 in 2008 (ref). -- Netha   (talk)  07:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

RfA
Thanks for your comment on my RfA. I just went and moved a page and created a redirect and have a quick query - and I'm a bit embarrassed to have to ask as it looks terribly green -is there seriously anyone who fails at this? GoldenRing (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your essay Taxonomy of new users is in project space. That's fine, so now your move log isn't empty. My main area of administration is WP:RM. Someone would fail if they couldn't tell the difference between an uncontroversial technical move and a potentially controversial move that needed discussion before making the move. An occasional misreading of the distinction is OK, but a track record of several reversed bold moves would be a significant issue, and a history of move-warring would be a show-stopper.


 * I just noticed this was the most recent item in your user log before that move
 * 09:58, 6 April 2016 was automatically updated from (none) to extended confirmed user
 * so just two days from the first anniversary of your becoming extended confirmed! ... or maybe that's just the date that the new "extended confirmed" user-status was first implemented; I don't recall when that happened exactly.


 * Regarding this redirect 'creation', that's OK but not exactly what I had in mind. This is the merging equivalent of a "bold, uncontroversial" move. Seems reasonable as it's just a short definition. If there was more substantial content, proposing a merge first would be expected. There is some cleanup associated with this though, that you neglected. You should check "what links here"... it's an item listed on the left side toolbar of your browser... there are 3 pages that link to Wangiri in article-space. A page shouldn't have a link on it that just redirects to the same page (a self-link), and an article's "see also" section should generally only have links to actual articles.


 * As to "seriously failing" with redirect-creation... there's an infamous case of an admin who lost their bit due to the thousands of troublesome redirects they created. I don't know whether you're familiar with that case. That case was pretty extreme; I'm not worried that anyone else will go there. I patrol Category:Missing redirects, but there isn't much anything to do there at the moment. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see what you mean. Thanks for the feedback.  GoldenRing (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski
I'd never heard of this person you mentioned in the RfA, so I checked their article out. Now, perhaps I'm out of touch but either a) the article is too long and seems to going to excessive, borderline stalking, detail or b) Ratajkowski is super-duper famous and well-known to everybody under about 25 and I'm just old. Which is it, do you think? My initial thought was it was a Neelix article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * She's a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model, which makes her well-known in the United States. Note the green circle with the plus-sign inside at the upper right of her bio. Much more famous than the girl N. was keen on (who was probably only well-known in Canada). So I wouldn't be surprised to find a group of young editors interested in that article. wbm1058 (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just googled for her and the top result was a Daily Mail piece about her seemingly trying to out-do Ed Miliband in how to eat a cooked breakfast without looking gormless. exhibit A exhibit b Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Why???
Why did you revert? Your explanation is lacking ("per WP:MALPLACED, and there's an open requested move at Talk:Pence (disambiguation))". I know there's on open RM at Talk:Pence (disambiguation); I participated and announced I will make the change there. I know it's MISPLACED - the RM will fix that (I even tagged it "R to disambiguation" for that reason). Are you opposed to the change? Do you even think it's controversial? What problem are you solving with this revert? --В²C ☎ 00:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I answered over at Talk:Pence (disambiguation). – wbm1058 (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Move request
A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series). Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is archived now, in Archive 7, and there is already an archive 8! wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Unploading 35th Annual Grammy Awards Poster
Hi! Thanks for your work on the 35th Annual Grammy Awards. Since I do not have an account here and do not want one, could you do my favour please and upload the official poster from this source 35th Annual Grammy Awards Poster and upload it to EN-WIKI and put it into the infobox in the article? Thanks! --188.108.37.186 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. All I did on that page was correct the spelling (or fix a typo) of the word "Database". Uploading files isn't something I do a lot. Can you make a request at Files for upload? I see from File:Grammy logo42.jpg, File:Grammyawards43.jpg and File:Grammylogo44.png that we do have some of these from other years, but I'm not comfortable with downloading something from a site I don't recognize. It would be better if you could find this on the Grammy's official website, and point me to that. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, yeah. It's taken from the Grammy site and then I moved it in a straight position because there was a white line on the left-hand side of the post here on the original: https://www.grammy.com/files/styles/year_poster/public/posterartwk_1993_035.jpg?itok=KqnOZyN6. You can upload that too. Just please do it, if you would be so nice. :-) Thanks! I want to start working on the page some more, but I just can not stand the empty logo in the infobox. Thank you so much. --188.108.37.186 (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ wbm1058 (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! :-) --188.108.37.186 (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk page redirects
We disagree on a few things regarding navigation tools around talk pages. And that's OK, we are a team.

But it's not OK to ask me whether I can read, or to deliberately clutter a page with links that we both agree serve absolutely no purpose. 

Fair enough?

You are a highly intelligent and competent contributor (you'd fit right in at Australian Mensa). But Wikipedia is not just for us. It's for all English speakers both to read and to edit, and we have policies that support them in this, and our procedures and practices should support these policies. Andrewa (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this reply, and the essay at wp:IPAT to which you linked in the edit summary makes some good points. But it does not IMO sanction you or anyone else ignoring the policies, guidelines and principles of Wikipedia.

See also Wikipedia talk:Ignore personal attacks. Andrewa (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed to see that you regard my rhetorical question as a personal attack, and that you regard the advice to ignore personal attacks as unbalanced and extreme. wbm1058 (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I regard the rhetorical question You couldn't read? as an uncalled-for personal attack, albeit a mild one. You do not?


 * And yes, I have now criticised the essay at WP:IPAT as currently representing an unbalanced and extreme view, and I am just the latest of several editors to comment to this effect.


 * It is sometimes, perhaps even often, best to ignore personal attacks, and this point is well made elsewhere. But the nutshell of this page If someone attacks you personally, you should ignore it, rise above it, and continue to comment solely on relevant content suggests to me that the author is saying this is always the best course, and the essay seems to reflect this view too, and I disagree.


 * Suggest we discuss this on the essay's own talk page. Andrewa (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirect hatnote
We seem to have differing understandings of what the redirect hatnote is for. It's for placement on top of an article to which a topic redirects when someone could have really had a different, also existing, article in mind when looking for that topic. It says so right in the template's documentation. It has nothing to do with whether there may be multiple redirects coming into the article sporting the hatnote. If there are multiple incoming redirects, each of which could also have been meant to go elsewhere, then each one gets its own redirect hatnote.

Or come at this from another direction. If someone searches for "Jack's Place" and is expecting to learn about the TV program, why do you think it's wrong to steer that person in the right direction, to information that is available here, when the default result of his search brings him to the article about the restaurant chain? Largoplazo (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Now I see that you turned to a different solution, making Jack's Place into a disambiguation page. That's ideal in this case. But given the prevailing circumstance, before you made that change, the presence of the hatnote was correct. Largoplazo (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Largoplazo, oh sorry. I missed that the apostrophe in Jack’s Place was non-standard. I'll move that page. wbm1058 (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Largoplazo, I was surprised to find no direct links to Jack’s Place, but not surprised enough to notice the apostrophe. I'll fix the links to Jack's Place now. wbm1058 (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah! I didn't notice any variation in the type an apostrophe. Good catch. Regards, Largoplazo (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are you changing RPM to rpm?

 * See Talk:RPM (disambiguation)

For example in you've gone through and changed all instances of "RPM" to the lowercase "rpm". Why? It looks like you're going through articles systematically to change them to lowercase, but you're not leaving any edit summaries explaining your reasoning. At Revolutions per minute you can see from the lede that there are numerous abbreviations in common use including rpm, RPM, rev/min, and r/min. Is there a reason to change all instances of "RPM" to "rpm" that you could (should?) be providing in the edit summary? -Thibbs (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Thibbs. The big issue is with direct links to RPM. You can see from RPM (disambiguation) that there are several other possibilities for that 3-letter acronym, and some of them are frequently used. Particularly in things relating to music, there is RPM (magazine) which is often the intended article for RPM links (ranking of songs and albums in Canada), more so than rotation speed. There are so many links going to that and others like RPM Records and RPM (Brazilian band) that I don't feel it should be left as the primary topic. You can see that the gramophone record article uses lowercase rpm so I'm inclined to favor that, at least for music-related articles. But, if there are particular articles where you prefer to use RPM in upper case for rotation speed, that's fine, as it is a valid alternative. My intention is to pipe all the remaining links:  so that RPM (disambiguation) can be moved to   but I'll leave   as is, with revolutions per minute the primary topic for the lowercase form. OK? wbm1058 (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As to when to use upper case, I think for example in the heading of the table at upper-case is good. But when it's describing a particular speed in running text, like 45-rpm, lower-case is better. wbm1058 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK so you're making a distinction between uppercase when used as a noun and lowercase when used as an adverb. I can see the logic and I'm not necessarily opposed to it, however in my experience moonlighting as a contributor at off-Wiki music databases the "RPM" format is much more commonly used than the "rpm" format which I tend to see mostly in forum posts by users who eschew capitals altogether in the interest of typing speed. I hadn't noticed that Wikipedia articles like gramophone record seem to be consistently using "rpm" rather than "RPM", and that does seem to provide support for your plan, but it also runs contrary to both the MoS on acronyms ("Acronyms whose letters are pronounced individually are written in capitals.") and on capitalization ("On Wikipedia, most acronyms are written in all capital letters."). Has there been any discussion about this at any of the Music WikiProjects? It may be a good idea to initiate one and then perhaps update MOS:MUSIC (although this seems to be mainly oriented toward classical music) and add this as an exception to the acronyms and capitals MoSes. What do you think? -Thibbs (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thibbs, see WP:UNIT – rpm is shown in lower case there. I view this as similar to other units of measurement that are typically shown in lower case, such as mpg, mph and psi. I haven't made that many changes like the one you caught – is an "edge case" as I didn't find many others like that, and it was one of the last edits I made while going through the links to music-related topics. Mostly I've fixed links intended for the Canadian magazine, a record company or a band, etc. A few cases had mixed usage (RPM and rpm) in the same article, and I made them all lower case to be consistent. At this point, I can just disambiguate without changing the existing usage, I suppose, i.e.   →  . I'm not that interested in starting a wider discussion, but feel free to do that if you want. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the point of the reference in WP:UNIT is about use of conventional units (like RPM) over SI units (like rad/s) instead of about capitalization, but I see you're right that the MoS does use the lowercase variation in its example. Anyway, no worries. I don't have anything like the time to engage in wider discussions these days either. Ultimately this is a pretty minor issue of style and not substance and historically I've tended to favor consistency of style so if Wikipedia's house style is "rpm" (as indeed it seems to be) then so be it. I don't anticipate it would ever cause any actual confusion for readers either way. Don't mind me. Carry on. :) -Thibbs (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thibbs. Take a look at the Camshaft article. 7 uses of RPM, 6 uses of rpm (13 total, and they finally link to (revolutions per minute) on the 12th of the 13). I suppose what you get with articles authored by committee. Seems that most treat RPM as an everyday term not needing explanation, as "revolutions per minute" is never spelled out. Kind of surprising given the number of WP:OVERLINKs I constantly see to things that are much more obvious than rpm. wbm1058 (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I just found Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 30, by checking Special:WhatLinksHere/RPM. wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Symphony No. 2 (Rachmaninoff), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RPM Records. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Re:
Hi! The discussion has now been closed, but we agreed that for footballers' honours, it would be preferable to use "international" as a sub-heading over "country" for a player's victories with their national side, so I've been fixing that on several pages. Best, Messirulez (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Episode lists
Just an FYI, this situation is the result of one editor's concerns about using a workaround that I haven't really seen as an issue in the 10 years that I've been editing TV articles. You can see the discussion here. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing the link to List of Casualty episodes*. Looks like it's survived unmolested since you set it up last August. Seeing that made my day. You've programmed professionally, eh? Ever run any bots here? I run PHP, and two important bots, on my Windows 7 machine. If you were interested in setting up a bot like that, I could help. It was pretty tricky to figure out everything needed to get it working on my own. Also, if you're interested in running for administrator, I would be happy to nominate you. wbm1058 (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad it made you feel better. Yes, I've programmed professionally in systems that were mission critical. Most of my work was in quality control, making sure that code written by others was bug free and implemented correctly, and fixing bugs when necessary. I haven't really thought of running a bot. Most of what I do doesn't really need one, but thanks for the offer of help. Maybe one day I'll take you up on it. As for admin, I did consider it in 2013 but I'm not sure I have the time. The extra tools would be nice though. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

harvest moon disambiguation
You reverted my edit because there already exists a disambiguation page, but you didn't actually link the page harvest moon to that disambiguation page which means there is currently no way to get to the videogame series harvest moon from typing in harvest moon on wikipedia. I resolved an issue on wikipedia, you reverted the issue back without adding any alternate solutions. Please take responsibility. Mijzelffan (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Mijzelffan, Harvest moon redirects to . At the top of that section are two hatnotes. One of them says:
 * "Harvest moon" redirects here. For other uses, see Harvest moon (disambiguation).
 * Readers can find the game by clicking on the link to Harvest moon (disambiguation). This is standard practice. wbm1058 (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Something is not working properly then because when I search for harvest moon on various browsers it just keeps me on the top of the page full moon, where there is no such redirect. Mijzelffan (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, that's a technical glitch. Sometimes section link redirects don't work as intended. I think maybe you need Javascript enabled for them to work. There may be some bug somewhere. I'll put redundant hatnotes at the top then. wbm1058 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Royal Navy move
Hello; I would like to question you about the reversion of the move of List of dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy to List of battleships of the Royal Navy even though I had already accomplished some of the merge between the dreadnought page and the List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy|pre-dreadnought]] page. I did notice that your edit summaries said they were contested, but I was never able to find a link to where they were contested. Could you help me out with this so that we can come to a satisfactory and productive conclusion? – Vami _IV✠  20:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh oops, I happened to make this edit just a moment too soon. Please forgive my biteyness. – Vami _IV✠  20:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Planys-logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Planys-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

AM/PM
Good day! Would you be able to fix the incoming links for AM/PM (album)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello! Just as you were adding a hatnote for AM/PM, I found where it was removed (on 17 November 2015, 18 months ago!), with the rationale "Removed advertising." Can you believe that! Sure, I'm working on it. I think a disambiguation for this is long overdue, and I don't think there is a primary topic. Too many editors can't get away from the "dictionary mindset" (but a trout for grabbing the primary topic for the album). wbm1058 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Claudius Xenophon
Sorry, it was Xenephon that redirected there. I've fixed it now. Donama (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Signpost page deletions you made
Hi Wbm1058! I hope you're doing well! I'm messaging you regarding Wikipedia Signpost/2013-12-13/News and notes and Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-12/News and Notes - both are pages that you deleted per WP:A11 back in 2016. A11 doesn't apply to this namespace, and I don't understand your rationale for deleting these pages let along for this reason - so I went ahead and restored both pages and removed the CSD tags applied to them. I wanted to see if you could point out anything that I may have missed in case I made a mistake. If I did, please let me know ASAP so that I can undo what I did. Thanks, and happy editing! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes... did you review that? The idea was to avoid a pointless, redundant snow pileup just like that. Technically you're right about WP:Axx speedy rationales, so there was an element of WP:IAR in my decision. What prompted you to bring this up 14 months after it was put to rest? Perhaps WP:G10 supports deletion, as a humorless attack on Trump? wbm1058 (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone asked me about it yesterday, and I agreed that it seemed strange given it's a signpost page and was tagged for A11 - so I looked into it. I don't think it was anything big, nor did I suspect tomfooleries. I'm not sure how the user ran into those pages, nor do I remember why he asked about it. *Shrugs*  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Funny you should mention Tom. I was just coincidentally doing maintenance work on that title:
 * OK, then if there is no stronger rationale for restoring these, I'm going to delete them again. Hoping to avoid a re-ignition of this old drama-fest. wbm1058 (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Image removal
Re this diff, under what circumstances is it an obstacle to page loading? On my desktop it loads a 47 KB thumbnail. —Guanaco 22:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In my Chrome browser, it was showing me a broken image symbol. I found that by specifying a specific image size, I was able to get it to work. I used the smallest size on offer at File:StateFarmInsuranceMarkham2.jpg — wbm1058 (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Guan, my laptop, which is newer than my desktop, was able to handle it, no problem. My desktop has a lot of tabs open, and Chrome keeps giving me errors indicating I'm pushing my memory limits, I suppose. It's probably not Wikipedia's fault as I have other stuff open. But still, it would be best if the image on commons could be scaled down. I think the default thumbnail tries to load the largest image, then scale it down on the user's machine. This is the first time I've run into this particular issue recently. wbm1058 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Years and numbers (AD) 1–100

 * Talk:AD 1

Year nav/dab
Hi Wbm1058, for year nav/dab templates, I've compiled a rough list of the top candidates for changes here, if you're interested. While I was not a proponent for change in the first RfC, I remarked that I may be interested in making template changes if consensus emerges in the second RfC. Thanks for that note under the "AD" section. Anyway, just an FYI — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 17:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * While you are in Decades and years, is there any chance you can fix the "0s BC" decade to point to 9–1 BC? I think it's in /row.  I'd do it, but I'm on my smartphone, and I'm too likely to make a misteak.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Arthur, thanks for reminding me of this section on my talk page. I've taken note of your wishlist at Template talk:Decades and years. Yes, I've been trying to fix that. That template has so many levels of sub-templates, it's like opening up a Russian doll. Note my research to figure it out at Template:Decades and years/testcases, and I also added a documentation subpage to Template:Decades and years/yearlink. Note that this subtemplate points to 100s when it should point to 100s (decade). The problem here is that the template was originally written when the convention was to name the "first decade of the century" pages as 100–109, but when that was moved to 100s (decade) on 30 November 2011‎, that sort of broke this template. So then tried to fix it on 11 August 2015, but I'm not sure whether that's the right "Russian doll" to patch. I'm working on sorting it all out. Instead of linking to 9–0 BC though, it should really link to 0s BC (decade) and that should redirect to 0s BC. I can't imagine doing this on a phone, but then I'm kind of a retro-grouch when it comes to phones as I'm still on a 2G phone. I know I'm gonna need to upgrade to a new phone soon though. Just need to take some time off from Wikipedia to go shopping! Don't worry about making a misteak though, you can't do that on a smartphone. That's something you get when you leave your steak on the charbroiler too long ;) Best, wbm1058 (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Year by category
You should be aware that this edit to Year by category broke several hundred pre-1000AD categories where people did not expect to have to set the millennium, so eg gets categorised in  rather than. Someone seems to have fixed most of them, but might I suggest that it would make sense if you changed the default on that template to 0001 so that it behaves "naturally" when people are working before 1000AD? Le Deluge (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that. Thanks for letting me know. wbm1058 (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this being used anywhere for years between AD 1 and AD 100? I'm not sure it will work correctly in that range, since those pages were moved to AD xx. wbm1058 (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't know - I had a quick look at the first few thousand and it didn't look like it, but I've not checked all 94k transclusions... I only came across it because hundreds of 2xxx categories started showing up on a red-link survey I work on, to be honest I try to avoid the year categories but you can't really avoid them when working on red-link cats! Le Deluge (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I just used WP:AWB to look up all 94K, then alpha-sorted them to find the needles in the haystack:
 * Category:23 by country, Category:23 by continent, Category:28 by country. It doesn't work for linking to Category:AD 10, but 23 looks like the first year that it's used in. Hope I didn't put too much strain on the servers; the job queue should clear these before too long, hopefully. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers - I don't have AWB on this device. Anyway, all looks sorted now. Le Deluge (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Finally finished this today. 11 through 100 are all disambiguation pages now. Another item checked off my to-do list. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Elderly
Thank you for editing. I saw your comment about the definition in an edit summary you wrote. The whole purpose of the article is to provide information on the scientific/medical use of the term. It is just a metric used in med journal articles and epidemiology for comparing one age group to another. Journal articles define the word. As for common usage, like you have pointed out, a wide range of terms is used to describe this age group. I don't know if this comment helps or not, but I thought you might like some kind of response to your edits. Thanks for helping make the article better.
 * Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  12:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I saw your interesting edit summary about the Elderly article. The point of the whole article is that the medical community has defined the word differently than its common usage. This is done for research purposes as described by the medical references. I should edit the Wikitionary with these references and their links. Thank you for your comment.
 * Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  11:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Gosh it's been a month already since you left your first message to me. Sorry for the belated response. I'm not sure that your cited references support your conclusion. "Language about Aging" by Frank Nuessel says, in the section titled "Designations for older adults":
 * The appropriate designation for people who are older has been a debatable issue. The National Council on the Aging surveyed ten terms (aged person, elderly person, golden ager, mature American, middle-aged person, old man/old woman, old timer, older American, retired person, senior citizen) to determine their acceptability among older adults—defined as people over the age of sixty-five. I don't know how we single any of these out for special treatment... to me they are all synonyms or euphemisms – or sometimes even terms of disparagement. "Older adult," has been "assigned routinely to all documents focusing on persons aged 60 and older."
 * And in "The elderly patient--who is that?", Sieber says defining elderly as over age 65 per se is nowadays certainly not really an adequate definition of an elderly patient.
 * So I'm not comfortable with a WP:content fork based on a specific age definition. I think elderly could just be merged into old age; we should only have one article defining the broad concept.
 * Where an article cites specific studies of the "elderly", then state the age definition used for the purposes of that specific research study. This may vary; some may study anyone over 65, while others may start at 60 or 70. And AARP takes anyone over 50. I shudder at the thought I will be "elderly" in a few years; people are surprised when I tell them I'm retired because I look too young for that. It's hard to explain that I "work" for Wikipedia but don't get paid, you know that's not a "real" job. On the other hand I enjoy the luxury of setting my own task agenda and not needing to carry a pager and be on-call 24×7. In the computer profession, companies generally treat you as washed up if you're over 45. That was a nice column you wrote for Wikipediocracy, by the way. You have a real talent for that genre of writing. wbm1058 (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How about I do a merge and then a redirect? This article is really about an epidemiological, quantifiable term rather than what everyone thinks it means. It is used by The World Health Organization and the Census bureau and the Centers for Disease control and Prevention and is not a broad concept. They have to define it even for the simple reason that this age group dies and they want to count them. Since I don't have time to make it more notable according to my definition I can hold off fixing it until I have more time. I've done this before and eventually go back and cancel the redirect with a real notable article. How about that - then we will both be happy. I would rather handle it this way with you because I am never excited about going through a merge discussion, it is too time consuming.


 * I would just rather do what you would like because I can go back later and address your concerns. Thanks for talking about it here rather than initiating a proposed merge. Let me know what you think. I absolutely hate being contentious and you seem like a very congenial person. The way you are handling this is so much better than what I am used to. What usually happens to me is I go back to edit an article and its gone and been redirected without anything close to a consensus or even a notification. The editor states that it was a merge but nothing really ends up the article to which it was merged. Its always done by the same editor. I'm still not sure what to do about especially since I detest bringing it up in front of any administrators because this backfired and I was the one who was blocked. This editor is an administrator. At least one other administrator discussed this problem in very, very general terms because I wasn't sure I was understanding what was happening. I realize this is not your problem and I'm glad.
 * Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  21:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Right, I think merge and redirect is probably best, with the contents you have now. Maybe create a Glossary of epidemiology terms. I can find some of those Googling for them: Glossary of epidemiology terms See if you can find one that lists "elderly", the two I looked at did not. I'm not convinced that there is a widespread academic or other consensus on the definition of this word that assigns a specific age to it. wbm1058 (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Barbara, I see that this census bureau report leads by defining its scope: "elderly (age 65 and over) population". So if you cite that report, just say "elderly (age 65 and over)" just like they do. I'm not sure about having an article about People over 65, but such a title would leave no doubt as to its scope. Another consideration is that we should take a worldwide-view, not just US-centric. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow! thanks for jumping right in! Since I still don't have time to put into it, I think I'll just put up redirect now. I can always go back to the editing history. A world-wide view will include information from the World Health Organization - I've seen it but don't remember where. If you are interested, just paste some of the refs you found on my talk page. Watch out! You'll be asked to become a medical editor...LOL.


 * Oh my gosh!!! That old age article is horrible! Just the first sentence makes me want to...oh I don't know. We're at the end of our life?? I'd like to see the reference on that one. I guess I just better walk into the funeral home and wait for a few minutes until he can dress me up. Did you ever see the movie Soylent Green? I redirected... not to Soylent Green but that would have been funny.


 * Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  22:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. Soylent Green is people. I remember watching it when it first came out, and at least one time since then. Watch out, 2022 is just five years from now. Hoping the automatic rifle-equipped drones won't be coming after us, when they're looking for all the "bad people" to take out to solve the overpopulation crisis! Maybe Moore's law-powered solar panels will save us by then, or a workable fusion reactor. Windmills are getting more efficient too. Best, wbm1058 (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Pope em? Regarding Catholic Integrated Community#people
Hi Wbm1058,

please have a look at references 9, 11, 18, 19, 35, 36 and 56 - these proof pope em being fried and patronize. But I will find some more and insert them directly under "person". So thank you for your notice.

Paddy Pillow (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that English isn't your first language. I believe instead of   it should say  . wbm1058 (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Need Help to move page
Sir, Request for move the the page Prem Khan (Indian actor) to Prem Khan. Thank you Goalpariyahero (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. wbm1058 (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Wbm, FYI, Prem Khan was salted due to sockpuppetry. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw that it was salted in November 2015, so I considered that salting to be stale as there is new information in the article which merits a re-review to determine whether there is consensus to keep it. wbm1058 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see that this has been re-created under so many different parenthetical disambiguation terms. e.g. Prem Khan (actor). Seems someone may be shooting themselves in the foot. wbm1058 (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In any event, moving over the salted article resolves a WP:content fork and if deleted, leaves behind a record of more recent edits and administrative actions. wbm1058 (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have stressed that no criticism of you was intended, Wbm. Purely informative. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Translation
Hello, you moved a page Prem Khan (Indian actor) to Prem Khan. I translated the article into Assamese as https://as.wikipedia.org/wiki/প্ৰেম_খান, and into Bengali as https://bn.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/প্রেম_খান; But these languages are not shown on the other languages of the English article. Need help of yours in this regard. Thank you! parthsar129 17:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axomiya deka (talk • contribs)

Please take care
Please take care to keep comments focused on content and not on contributors, as you did the opposite at.

Also, the content was NOT a "content fork", not sure if maybe you misunderstand usage of that term, perhaps. Sagecandor (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Catalan name
Template:Catalan name has been nominated for merging with Template:Spanish name. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary Disambiguation notification
Please move Rajdweep (playwright and lyricist) to Rajdweep, Thanks Monuwara (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Awaiting the outcome of Articles for deletion/Rajdweep (playwright and lyricist). wbm1058 (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The use of the WORD 'ricing'
While auto racing fans may be unfamiliar with the term, the term 'ricing is widely used in food prep (please read the article!). So it IS a significant USE for the TERM ricing, though its meaning is unrelated to how the term 'ricing' is understood in car racing. Please don't remove the redirect to the article about the similar-sounding word 'Ricing (cooking)'. The article about rice burners is not damaged or diminished in any way by the clarifying redirect. MaynardClark (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note this use of the term, at : the Bhutto government launched programs to put the country on road to self-sufficiency in ricing, sugar-milling, wheat husking, industries. Bhutto's government intensified the control of ricing, sugar-mills and wheat husking factories with initially believing that public sector involvement would reduce the influence of mega-corporations transforming into big monopoly sphere. So it seems the term ricing applies more than just passing rice through a kitchen utensil. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think they mean Rice huller. wbm1058 (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that there are other common ways to use the word 'ricing', but I know from food preparation that the term 'ricing' is used widely in cooking to describe a certain process. My thinking is that other common uses should be listed and redirected to Wikipedia articles that describe that reality (whether 'auto racing' in a 'ricer' or 'planting and growing rice').  I have no unhappiness with more articles that describe other uses of the word 'ricing' - in fact, I would favor more articles if the different use of the word truly describes something different. MaynardClark (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Wiktionary definition could be more helpful. wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I looked at the Wiktionary definition and found that it said nothing about the uses of the word 'ricing' except calling it the 'present participle of rice' (which is not very illuminating).  Perhaps you suggest that updating the Wiktionary definition could be more useful. MaynardClark (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Wiktionary definition could be updated to make it more useful. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My learning to update Wiktionary would be a learning experience for me (which I postpone until next month sometime, unless you or someone else updates it earlier). MaynardClark (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

River Lys vs Leie
I publicly thanked you for your recent edit, without actually seeing what you did on the page, after the intervention of original compiler Auric. To answer your question, my point was that English use favours the name Lys, which happens to be also the French. We do, after all, refer to fleur de lys. So for a river which flows for half its course in France, it makes sense to have River Lys as the title of the article instead of the Dutch Leie. My Flemish colleagues would fully accept this logic. So the English article should be named River Lys or Lys (river), in my view.David-waterways (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I replied at User talk:David-waterways. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Page moved to Lys (river) which is a WP:PDAB... perhaps the first on a non-pop-culture topic. wbm1058 (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Bot1058 and talk pages of redirects

 * See Template talk:R from incomplete disambiguation

Hi, sorry for bumping into you again, but was that supposed to happen? – Uanfala (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes... Brijesh (Indian politician) is tagged with the R from incomplete disambiguation because, I assume, there is more than one Indian politician named Brijesh. Talk:Brijesh (Indian politician) was redirecting to Talk:Brijesh Singh, but Brijesh (Indian politician) redirects to Brijesh, thus that page was put into Category:Unsynchronized disambiguation talk pages. It's better to have it marked with WikiProject Disambiguation than redirect to a different page. I know technically Brijesh is not a disambiguation but rather a "given name" page that happens to disambiguate people with that name. There's more than one solution to this, and my bot is just doing what's easiest. Feel free to do something else like redirect to Talk:Brijesh, or blank the page or delete the page even. This is a bit of an unusual scenario as most redirects from incomplete disambiguation pages are to disambiguation pages rather than to human name pages that act as disambiguators. wbm1058 (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it's my bad then, for leaving the talk page out of sync. I don't know what's the most useful way of dealing with this, but replacing the content with the WP DAB project banner is certainly one of the least: 1) this banner should only be put on talk pages that have other content as well (explained in the template's documentation); and 2) its placement obscures the connection with both the old redirect target and the new. – Uanfala (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , my bot's task #3 was approved on 29 May 2016, before the template's usage guidance was amended on 11 July 2016. I did not have Template:WikiProject Disambiguation or Template:WikiProject Disambiguation/doc on my watchlist; that was perhaps an oversight of mine, so I just added them. Thanks for adding the links to the discussions; this is the first that I've noticed that. Note that the guidance says "Please do not use to create talk pages that otherwise have no content." My bot does not create any such pages; it only corrects pages that have redirects out-of-sync with the main-space page. I could just blank the page rather than add the WikiProject template, but that would still leave a time-wasting blue-link to be checked. I see that you would like to automatically delete any talk pages that only contain the project banner (and don't have any other content in previous revisions). I could do that if you can get consensus for it; though I would need to establish a bot with administrative privileges to complete that task. Be aware though, that some may have issues with leaving red links behind where pages have been moved (the discussions there got rather testy). The red link was left behind because the consensus of this requested-move discussion was to change the primary topic... just as by moving to Brijesh (Indian politician) you changed the PT for Brijesh. My bot has been operating for nearly a year now, and you're the first to finds issues with its edits. Note however, that while I haven't changed the bot's AWB instructions, I did recently expand the scope of its operations to include redirects to disambiguation pages as well as disambiguation pages themselves: see this diff and Template talk:R from incomplete disambiguation. So, please do suggest a better solution than what my bot is currently doing, but I still think what it's doing now is better than doing nothing. wbm1058 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe in such cases the best solution is to add Talk page of a redirect followed by a brief notice of where the redirect was targeted before and where it is targeted now? This is the solution that I got the impression was the one most favoured by . – Uanfala (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * is putting that template on many pages that land in Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects. I don't see how that template by itself is an improvement. WikiProject Disambiguation indicates that the page is a redirect to a dab-type page of some sort, while Talk page of a redirect is more generic, not indicating that it's anything disambiguation-related. It would be more work to add a note explaining the history, and the former and current targets. People have to go out of their way to get to the talk page of a redirect in the first place, as most will land on the talk page of the target of the redirect. Those with enough clue to get to these pages should be knowledgeable enough to research the history if they have sufficient motivation and reason to. This is an automated process I've created and going to the trouble to manually add this history with the former and current targets to each page isn't worth the trouble, and it's probably not worth the trouble to automate such messages either. I don't think I could do it with AWB so I'd probably need to write a custom bot. Such a thing would be so low on my priority list that it would likely never get done. wbm1058 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the echo, wbm1058! As I read the above, the thought came to me, 'Why not do both?'.  Place the dab banner, which by the way works on any dab, given name, surname or set index talk page (I think the class for a set index talk page is SIA, or something similar, in many project banners), and the Talk page of redirect template at the TOP above the project banner.  I do it that way because that template effectively turns the talk page into a soft redirect.  Since most reader landings would be inadvertent, and since such talk pages should have no new discussions, both templates may serve Wikipedia best.  And as you know, the Talk page of redirect template automatically synchronizes talk pages to their subject pages' targets, even when the subject page is renamed.   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  00:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I like 's suggestion. I'll go back and re-do all all the pages that my bot has processed so far, and change the rest to look like Talk:2nd Chance (album). Those who are curious may quickly review the page history to see that 2nd Chance (Karen Clark Sheard album) is the former primary topic. I trust that this is sufficient. wbm1058 (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see the benefit of having Talk page of redirect + WP DAB banner over the easier solution of just redirecting the talk page to be in sync with the article. And a side note: the WP DAB banner doesn't belong on anthroponymy pages, and before putting it on set-index articles I would want to gauge the opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. – Uanfala (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , Is that your final answer? wbm1058 (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Uanfala's right about using WikiProject Anthroponymy rather than the Dab project banner on surnames and given names talk pages. I was wrong about that.  The Dab banner is still okay to use on set index talk pages.  One advantage of using the Talk page of redirect rather than to make the talk page a hard redirect is that the subject page redirect might target a page that has no talk page, so a hard redirect used to synch the talk page would target a non-existing talk page, and Anomiebot would quickly find the edit and revert it.  When I synched the 10,000+ talk page redirects, I converted them all into hard redirects using AWB, then Anomie reverted about 1,000 of them that had targeted non-existing talk pages.  I had to use Talk page of redirect to go back and synchronize those talk pages.   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  11:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * when I made this edit to Template:R from incomplete disambiguation, I thought it would be simplest and sufficient to just populate the existing Category:Unsynchronized disambiguation talk pages so my bot could handle them all (mostly) the same. Now it seems clear that that is not acceptable, so I think I need to create a new Category:Unsynchronized disambiguation talk page redirects so that these can be specially processed via getting all the pages in that category. I can create the new category while we sort out what the best solution is for the pages that land there. This is turning out to be more complicated than I bargained for. wbm1058 (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans", John Lennon, "Beautiful Boy"   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  02:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, let's hat the discussion on my talk page and resume the conversation at Template talk:R from incomplete disambiguation. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested moves
Thanks. I had no idea what I was doing. It finally worked but whatever you just fixed was still there.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  18:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of hatnote in Bear
I notice you removed the hatnote from Bear on the basis that "Ursine is ambiguous".

Fair enough, but that hatnote also included the link to Bear (disambiguation) which was affected by the removal as well. I appreciate that these maybe should have been separate hatnotes in the first place, but please take care when removing things like this that you don't inadvertantly break something else. Thanks.

(I've already added a new hatnote covering Bear (disambiguation), BTW). Ubcule (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * oops, I missed that. No, combined hatnotes generally are preferred. Sorry, my bad. Occasionally I just miss things like that in my patrols. wbm1058 (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Move review for Damn (Kendrick Lamar album)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Damn (Kendrick Lamar album). Because you were involved in the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. — The   Magnificentist  12:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Old rfd on talk pages
Hi and thank you for your help at RfD, it's appreciated! Just a note though, that after a discussion is closed, nowadays it's usually expected from the closer to place the Old rfd note on the talk page (of course, unless the redirect was deleted). If you use the XFDcloser script, it will do that for you. – Uanfala 12:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't aware that there was a script for that! wbm1058 (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Its capabilities were relatively recently extended to RfD. It's quite useful and saves a lot of work, especially if there are several redirects and the outcome is the same for all of them. – Uanfala 13:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Might be able to make progress on 129095 and the Special pages documentation T47221
Hi Wbm1058. Please see an email I sent you. Hoping to find out how to make progress on the documentation bug about Special:Permalink and Special:Diff, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T47221, and the the proposed Mediawiki code change to display something helpful if Special:Diff or Special:Permalink are invoked with no arguments. You and I discussed this back in 2015, and I'm happy to see that your talk page archives still remember the issues. It appears that in 2015 User:MatmaRex did the coding work to change Mediawiki. Hs change passed the code review, but the current status is 'Needs rebase'. One of the code reviewers was nl:User:Siebrand. I've been explaining the status to a person who knows more about documentation. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed. I got the usual email saying "‪EdJohnston‬ left you a message on Wikipedia" but no separate email other than the notice that samuwmde added a comment to the phabricator ticket. I checked my spam folder; nothing there either. But maybe it will come through in the next few hours. Thanks for giving this a bump. Now I'm wishing I'd made the trip to Montreal. I would have liked to meet you in person. Try to stay awake if you sit through any talks about their strategy for 2030. I just wish they could come up with a strategy for taking less than several years to respond to a simple request to update some documentation.


 * And if you could bump this task as well, I would be very grateful. It saw some action at the May hackathon, but now is again frustratingly stalled in a state of limbo. Best, wbm1058 (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Now sent. Sorry for the delay. It appears that there are people who know about these things, you just need to figure out who to ask. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it Ed! Look for this guy, I would have enjoyed meeting him too and I'm sure I could learn a lot from him. I've got mixed feelings about not making the trip, as there is an unrelated local event I would have missed if I was in Montreal. wbm1058 (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Matma Rex has been making some changes that you can see in 129095. It appears there nothing is likely to hold this up any further. But it is worth considering whether any of the documentation for Special:Diff and Special:Permalink should be updated as well. From looking over some help pages, I am not certain that Special:Diff is included in all the different lists of special pages you can see here and there. For example, it is not in Special:SpecialPages. He showed me the new blank page form that will be generated when you hit Special:Diff with no arguments. This is a big step forward over seeing 'No such target page' when you hit Special:Diff with no arguments, but it's not clear to me that I'd have any use for a form with space for two pointers to edits. Can you think of anything better? Generally I make diffs by clicking on underlined words in histories. Or by going through someone's contribution list and clicking on the 'Diff' links. He says there is a feature that allows a short piece of text to appear above everything else on the Special:Diff result page but somebody would have to decide what to put there. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A long time ago I asked how to edit—or request an edit—of Special:SpecialPages. I don't think I ever got an answer, but I suppose you could submit a phabricator asking for that. I gave up on waiting for the developers to update that page which we can't edit, and with the help of the search tool, believe I created a comprehensive list at Help:SpecialPages, which was complete as of mid-December 2016‎. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We also have: Help:Special page • Help:Diff • Help:Permanent link – wbm1058 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the door is open for code changes to the parameterless call to Special:Diff I think we could ask for pure documentation changes to be put through at the same time. It appears you did a nice job at Help:SpecialPages. Perhaps we should just verify that the other forms of documentation of the same thing have a link to it. In fact, the other documentation changes may not need the same amount of approval since there is nothing to be 'tested'. We would just have to ensure that the documentation is correct. Possibly nothing more than admin permissions is needed. Somebody would need to tell us what files to edit. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, if there are pages in MediaWiki: for editing the "short piece of text to appear above everything else on the Special:Diff or Special:Permalink result page" can you find out what the page names are for that? Thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm doing last-minute preparations for this, which is at 4pm EDT! Sending you an email. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk)

EdJohnston, the change is live! Check out the new Special:Diff and Special:Permalink. I created the pages MediaWiki:Diff-form-summary and MediaWiki:Permanentlink-summary to show the "short piece of text to appear above everything else" on those pages, which overrides the default (which is to show no message at all). There are other components we can change too, such as the titles shown at the top of those pages: Thanks so much for the nudge at Montreal that made this finally happen! — wbm1058 (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * diff messages
 * permalink messages

Bruce Flatt

 * Hi Wbm1058, it  appears that you  restored this page out of process.  It  was deleted under G5 and and following an enquiry, the deletion was endorsed at  DELREV (Deletion review/Log/2017 August 4). Could you  please look into  this. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, slow Internet. I see you  deleted it  again  already. Thank you very much. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the new order. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment
Not sure if this interests you but you never know:

WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Provident Financial is hurting. The financial canaries are signaling trouble. When the shoeshine boys want to start an investment project on Wikipedia, watch out! My interest in finance is so last-millennium, but good luck with it. Buy low, sell high. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers mate. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
This is your only warning; if you add an inappropriate image to Wikipedia again, as you did at Peter Norton, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your behavior on this article has gone on too long. NFCC policy and consensus practice are quite clear. Nonfree book covers are generally not allowed in author bios; the nonfree use rationale for the image involved is plainly invalid, and neither that image nor your prior comments provides any basis under NFC policy for making an exception to the general rule. NFCC requirements are more restrictive than general "fair use" principles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We clearly have a difference of opinion. You haven't cited any precedents where this matter has been previously discussed as it relates to similar usage in other articles. Make your case at Files for discussion, and let's see where the consensus lies. This needs wider discussion than it's had so far (a local discussion on your talk page). wbm1058 (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Autocar disambiguation
True, the magazine is currently primary, but based on Page Traffic and Links, Autocar Company should be primary. Can you change this, please?Sedimentary (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sedimentary. It's better to change in incremental steps. Make a more modest proposal with higher odds for success. Rather than start with the boldest proposal and risk rejection. The Indiana-based manufacturer is clearly the primary topic in the United States, but in the UK the magazine may be primary. Wikipedia needs to take a worldwide view, as it has readers in all English-speaking countries around the world. Your support for my proposal at Talk:Autocar (disambiguation) would be helpful and appreciated. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Ain't Nature Grand! Edit
Thank you for fixing the error I unintentionally made on the Ain't Nature Grand! article. Sorry about the mistake, but I appreciate your edit very much! --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

23.22.22.130


The vandal that you just blocked is back using this IP address. Thanks. 73.96.113.19 (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Two years of adminship, today.
Wishing Wbm1058 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Marriage template errors
I took 5 articles out of the error category yesterday. DrKay (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see, and you've put notes on the editor's talk pages as well. Thanks for letting me know. That template is something of a mess; I'm working on cleaning it up. Will get back to you about the died/widowed thing. wbm1058 (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been slow to follow up on this. Just noticed Template talk:Marriage#Death and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Template talk:Marriage#Death. I'll take a look. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Marriage
Could you add -->(<!-- to this template, right before this line: (Start parenthesis carrying marriage data) It looks like you deleted it by mistake and I'm not able to edit it myself. Thanks. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. I just noticed that myself, and was looking at it just as you dropped me this notice. Thanks! wbm1058 (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is it so hard?
These trucks are named "International". That is a fact. This is some kind of culture thing. These trucks are only called "Harvester" inside Wikipedia. A name has been made up for ease in linking Wikipedia articles.

This is such a simple thing and it has been made so complex. People go out of their way to make up complications. Maybe because they hate me. Nobody will just say "oops, got that wrong, better fix it". Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

International trucks - requested moves
About the requested moves discussion. As one of the simpler editors here I'm concerned this discussion seems to have cunningly escaped closing and I don't understand why. Am I allowed to bring it to the attention of an / any admin? If this discussion is closed with no change can the same discussion, more or less immediately, be re-commenced with this time more disciplined input from the supporters of the move? Is a renewed request barred for some long time? Thanks and regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The strongest case can be made for moving International Harvester S-Series, the last complete product line designed within the existence of International Harvester, which has a lengthy production history under Navistar. I'd enter a single request to move just that, for the best chance of success, then take it from there as far as consensus allows. But let's wait to cross that bridge before we have to. wbm1058 (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the weakness of the many sources that Eddiao and I have shown? We don't seem to get anyone to consider them. (I probably have confused things too much). You know I think the circle is just to small, too much prejudice. Both Eddiado and I have begged for outside, objective POVs, no luck. We were lucky to get you, even though I don't always agree with you. Without some more "new eyes", just by default this may stay stagnant. (Personal note: is it acceptable for me to update a collapsed source list to be clearer?) Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

See. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Old discussions
I wonder if you might be able to help me find something. Around 2010 or soon after there was a discussion of the appropriate name for International trucks (then I think without the Harvester). The argument for including Harvester was very narrowly carried on the grounds that it avoided confusion with any truck crossing the Canadian or Mexican or other border. I was truly startled at the time but still being a new kid on the block I did nothing - anyway I think the discussion was over when I found it.

Since 2008 there has been a Commons:category:International trucks and there has never been any confusion at all so far as I am aware (and I go around Commons tidying things up which is why I first raised this matter). The same unjustified concern has been raised again at the end of the most recent discussion.

I have made efforts to search through old discussions on Wikimedia and Commons without any luck. Is it possible you might have a better understanding of this environment, better tools and more success? Many thanks, Eddaido (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * sorry, I wasn't able to locate it either. I've added comments addressing that issue at WikiProject Trucks. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Dynasty of Heaven?
Thanks for your input at Tianxia. You might want to weigh in on the proposed title restoration move at Dynasty of Heaven. ch (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, now I've reverted both undiscussed moves. wbm1058 (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Caltech
Do you have a reliable reference for the Caltech calculator? There is a Cal-Tex, which is well documented in the reference that you removed. Also, there are data sheets for the Cal-Tex calculator, but I find no data sheets for the Caltech calculator. Are they two different calculators? Or did the Caltech project lead to the Cal-Tex company to make them? Gah4 (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Gah4, in my edit summary, I gave http://www.electronicdesign.com/analog/first-handheld-digital-calculator-celebrates-50-years-part-1 "TI code-named the project “Cal-Tech.” It was common practice at TI to name projects after universities."


 * Caltex appears to be a relatively unknown California company that Tom Maher worked at. I don't see its significance relative to Texas Instruments, where the calculator was arguably invented. Though Hewlett-Packard might stake a claim to that as well. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Cal-Tex actually produced and sold chips. Is there no connection between the Cal-Tex company and the TI project?  A 50 year old reference might have forgotten the actual spelling.  Did the original people write the article 50 years later?  Are there any written documents from the actual time of the project?  Gah4 (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Cal-Tex actually produced and sold chips. So did Texas Instruments. So what?
 * Is there no connection between the Cal-Tex company and the TI project? It's up to you to find a connection. We don't assume companies are connected unless someone can "prove" that they aren't.
 * I accept Electronic Design as a WP:reliable source. Sure, you can look for more contemporary sources describing the first calculator. I don't have time for that right now. wbm1058 (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Your recent revert
The edit you reverted, is back again. special:diff/810643878. — usernamekiran (talk)  15:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just testing my bot. I'll add for timeline to its list of valid hatnote templates. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Silly me! I didnt realise it was your bot. Such a shame for a user who likes to keep an eye on bots, especially for the founder of SPOW. And to top it off, I am a page mover as well.I also thought you were trying to revert a RMCD bot, which would have resulted an edit war — usernamekiran (talk)   21:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I proudly wear my electronic blue gemstone on my user page. :) wbm1058 (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well hidden though, that it doesn't get stolen ;) - tell the photographer whose star I wore for a long time. He's an admin on the commons, and takes wonderful photos, several featured, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

interjecting a subsection...
Someone added a talk page references template into the discussion which ideally should stay at the bottom. So I added a subsection for it called References. However, if you edit the proposal section it takes you to the bottom of that section, which includes the References, so people will add their comments "at the end", and not retain the references at the bottom. That's why I create a separate Discussion subsection for just comments. It's natural to click edit on that, and that leaves the References below and out of it. I've seen it done before.

Do you have a better solution? --В²C ☎ 19:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * В²C, Sure, I fixed it for you. wbm1058 (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

True Meaning of "Contributing"
As I have seen on your page (awards for your 'contributions') I firmly believe that deleting people's work should not go towards your "contributions" in Wikipedia, for you are simply removing. I say this on your page hence your copious amounts of deletion of information which can take users many hours of research to make, only to be brittled down and deleted. Hence, the diminishing amount of (active) writers to Wikipedia. Most of the contributions are editors who delete most, if not all proposed information without even attempting to peer edit the data. At least attempt to use the information as a mold for other writers. DoctorSpeed (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * wbm1058, this user appears to be trolling. I've warned them not to post to my talk anymore, and told them that future trolling might result in a block. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm probably a little more patient than most, with editors whose posts aren't immediately clear about what they want. wbm1058 (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't follow the point of your message. Deletion isn't an area that I'm particularly active in, other than routine, uncontroversial cleanup type of stuff. Is there something specific I deleted that I should not have? You only have 41 edits since May, and as far as I can tell none of them have been deleted. Maybe you mean Reverting? I recall we met on the Japanese embassy hostage crisis page. If there is anything specific I can do to help you, please do let me know what you're after. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems that I posted this in the incorrect user's talk page. Apologies wbm1058 please disregard this I meant to put this on Ballioni's page. You see, he disagreed with something I asked him now the user appears to have gone through all my conversations and stating that I am a "troll". As per the Hostage Crisis matter, we put that to bed a while ago Said the actress to the bishop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorSpeed (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Brown
Greetings. Please see their talk page for a query you might have some views on. James Y Marshall (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Things have moved on to the Help Desk. I am not sure if you want to get involved, but can I appeal to you to do so, since it is being suggested there is something amiss in casting this as a Dennis vs. Floquenbeam issue, when in reality that is how it is, unless or until other Wikipedia Administrators register their views on how they think policy directs them to deal with journalists.

I understand if you don't want to wade into all of the posts, but another poster on Wikipediocracy has just distilled the issue quite well. Wikipedia has lots of editors who do not advertise any other means by which they can be contacted, other than via their talk page. So the ability to edit Wikipedia, if only for first contact for potential interviewees, becomes a necessary part of doing journalism about Wikipedia.

Given that, and taking all of Dennis' reasoning together (this is why reading all of his posts and focusing on him has become necessary, as he has set the only precedent so far, and is sticking to it), the inescapable conclusion is that he will block any journalist who attempts to contact a Wikipedia editor via their talk page for the purposes of journalism. And that he will always block someone who does that, regardless of whatever else they do (including something else that would indicate they intend to "contribute to the encyclopedia").

If you, as another Wikipedia Administrator, just a volunteer like Dennis, cannot agree with that as a sound interpretation of policy, then surely you see the problem facing Wikipedia and journalists in the future?

On the flip side, if you think a journalist contacting editors by the only means available to them should be a blockable offence, if you think that makes sense and is compatible with all policies and beliefs of Wikipedia, it would help resolve the situation faster if you just said that is how you feel, and would act in future, and I could then focus on how I get that explicitly mentioned in a policy, so everyone knows where they stand, journalists, Administrators and Wikipedia editors alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Marshall Y (talk • contribs) 21:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If I understand the Request for Comment process correctly, what do you think of this as a possible question? I'm trying to keep it brief, without keeping out pertinent facts.

''Should there be a protocol governing first contact between someone stating they are a journalist and those Wikipedia users who can only be contacted via their talk page? Or are current rules clear enough to determine if such contact is permitted, prohibited, or acceptable under certain conditions? If clarification is required, what should be clarified? For example, should there be requirements for journalists to identify themselves, or their publication, or their reason for the inquiry or intended recipient/s, or go through some other qualifying process or procedure to provide assurance the contact isn't likely to cause alarm, distress or disruption to Wikipedia or its users? This question specifically only covers the permissibility and nature of first contact with user/s, on the assumption that what happens in subsequent communications, if any, can be managed as normal. It is assumed that users will always be allowed to decline, ignore or remove any attempt at first contact, or indeed subsequent messages, and that should always be respected.''

I would then add my personal view, as a comment.

Do you think it would be helpful, or needlessly distracting, to note that this is not a hypothetical query, but has its genesis in the dispute over the correctness of Dennis' block?

James Marshall Y (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI James, note above that I was invited to participate in a survey about WP:AN/I. The survey asks how often I participated on that page in the last 12 months. Generally I try to avoid escalation of disputes to that level, and have been successful in that. In the interest of accurately responding to the survey, I examined my editing history to obtain the most accurate answer. In the last 12 months, I've participated in just two "incident" discussions at AN/I. The first was about an editor accused of impersonating a journalist. That accusation was leveled at the editor Dennis Brown blocked for being "not here" as well. In both cases it seems that the editor making the claim failed to back it up with adequate proof of their identity. Based on this, I'm thinking that journalists wishing to interview Wikipedia editors should either (1) practice undercover journalism, i.e. don't identify their profession while editing Wikipedia anonymously, or (2) identify themselves by their real name. Semi-outing themselves seems to be problematic. But, a separate issue is, whether any new editor has a right to ask another editor to email them for any reason (not just for a journalist's interview) without being sanctioned for being "not here", or do they need to contribute content in order to "earn the privilege" of being allowed to ask another editor to email them? BTW, the other, more recent incident is related to (above) and  (below). Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The gun stuff is way over my head. Is it relevant? I got excited when you mentioned a prior case, only to realise they weren't trying to do journalism, unless they intended to write a piece about about what happened when they tried to edit that article. I think that might be what the other person at the Help Desk was meaning, regarding not being part of the story. I can't see why journalists shouldn't be allowed to edit articles, and then write a story about their experiences. But if that was their goal, it makes perfect sense not to mention you are a journalist, unless or until they are done with their research. This may not meet most people's idea of ethical journalism, but it is pretty commonplace.


 * If not that, then it's not clear to me why they claimed to be a journalist, so I confess to being a little confused as to why establishing if they were one or not, was relevant, since they didn't seem intent on blocking them if they were. Naturally, if someone says they're Joe Blogs on LinkedIn, and you get a message from joeblogs@linkedin.com saying they have no idea what you're on about, that is a sign something weird is going on, and I would assume impersonating real people was a block worthy offence here in all cases, whether Joe Blogs is a journalist or a tire salesman. I didn't look closely enough to know if what the user was saying was enough to know which Joe Blogs to contact for verification, but I assume there was certainty.


 * Are the point of your observations (1) & (2) to suggest an alteration of my proposed question? I think the issue of what information people calling themselves journalists need to give in order to be allowed to contact users, if any, is something the question seeks to obtain. It could very well lead to a realisation that expecting anyone to have to contribute just for the right to initiate first contact for any reason, is wrong, but I'm reluctant to purposefully prod people in that direction, since I can see some cases where it would be sensible. Not many, but enough that it might cloud the issue for the journalist specific case. Maybe it can be dealt with at a later date, if this question results in establishing a precedent that it is wrong in at least one case, journalism.


 * I would like to stay away from the issue of undercover reporting, since hiding you are a reporter is part of the job, so presumably whatever is decided that the protocol should be, would be ignored. The protocol might even end up organically concluding that undercover reporting is or should be prohibited, so contacting people while pretending not to be a journalist when you are, is not permitted. But that is the reverse of the question at hand.


 * It may end up being relevant insofar as I hope people realise encouraging undercover reporting might be a side effect of getting the answer to this question wrong, as I think someone has noted already, but again, I'd rather let people get there on their own, rather than point them in that direction in the question.

James Marshall Y (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, the gun stuff isn't particularly relevant, it's just another complicated issue I'm juggling on my talk page. And my other observations have no specific intent regarding your proposed question. I can't think of any way to improve your question. You could leave the genesis of the question out, and only talk about that if asked. I think it's likely you will be asked, if someone else doesn't bring that up in their response. wbm1058 (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Great. I have now posted the question, and noted the existence of the block that promoted it, in my comment. If you could have a quick look at it, to see if I have made any obvious mistakes, that would be appreciated. James Marshall Y (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, do you think it is sufficiently wide ranging "centralized discussion"? James Marshall Y (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

We are now 24 hours in, and the low number of responses is not what I would have assumed for such an important issue. Also very bizarre how people write "oppose", not clear to me how to interpret that, except I suppose as a "no" to the first question. Why can't they just say "no"?/Hard to know if this lack of interest is because people don't know about it, or don't care about it, or is just normal. I'm hoping the automatic random notification system does its magic and draws more responses, but I suppose it won't be obvious for a few days yet, as I think it only kicks in about now? P.S., any idea what Dennis means by "There are proxies involved, and that is all I can say about that."? James Marshall Y (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I said OK on your question as I didn't really know what response you would get, but the response you did get wasn't really surprising to me. It was a pretty open-ended question, rather than a specific policy-change proposal, so you got something of an open-ended response. I wouldn't make the effort to appeal, as the answer is now clear to me. This gets back to the two options I gave above in my somewhat non-answer to your asking if your question was good-to-go. Either practice undercover journalism and accept the risk you will be accused of unethical journalism, or fully disclose the journalist's identity and employer. This is basically the answer you got from Cullen and Risker, who gave the best, and on-topic answers. I wouldn't concern too much with the other responses. If you wanted to confirm this you could make a followup RfC: Propose an addition to WP:NOTNOTHERE: Journalists and researchers making contact with non-email-enabled editors should not be blocked for "not being here to build an encyclopedia". Journalists or academic researchers, may, after identifying themselves with the Wikimedia Foundation, leave a note on non-email-enabled editors' talk pages, identifying themselves and their employer, requesting email contact to discuss some aspect of Wikipedia with them. I would be shocked if such a proposal didn't pass. Heck, this sort of contact is already happening; see . But proposals for anonymous contact from journalists are going nowhere. They should just go underground if they want to do that. wbm1058 (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Early Olympic rapid fire pistol events
List of Olympic medalists in shooting for 25 m rapid fire pistol includes the following events:


 * 1896: Only muzzle-loading pistols of .45 caliber (30 shots in 5 series of 6 shots each). The 25 metre military pistol, which was won using a Colt revolver, was a separate event.
 * 1900: 20 metre military pistol event (6 shots in 1 series of 6 shots), for prize money
 * 1912: The individual competition with revolver and pistol (duel shooting) at 30 metres distance (30 shots in 6 series of 5 shots each)
 * In 1920 there was a 30 metre military pistol event (30 shots in 5 series of 6 shots each) in which Brazilian shooters used Smith & Wesson revolvers with adjustable sights, while American shooters used either the Colt Army Special or the Smith & Wesson Military with fixed sights.[1] Another article lists this as the 25 metre rapid fire pistol event in 1920.

The existence of the redirects from "25 m rapid fire pistol" to the event article with the correct distance is for the purpose of helping people, who initially think that these events were at 25 m, find the article with the correct distance in their search. Jeff in CA (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I work the Database reports/Linked misspellings list, and am the only editor who currently does that on a regular basis. Note that list shows there are 32 links to Shooting at the 1912 Summer Olympics – Men's 25 metre rapid fire pistol. That page was flagged as a misspelling, so while it's OK to have it to help readers, we shouldn't have internal links to that title. Lots of editors flag titles as misspellings, which is good, but very few actually clean up links to these misspellings, which is not so good. I'd appreciate your help with fixing these. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ISAWIT listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ISAWIT. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:ISAWIT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mathglot (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Bots/Requests for approval/Bot1058 4
Your recent bot task has been. Apologies for the long wait on this. Admittedly, I forgot about the trial. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

4/4 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 4/4. Since you had some involvement with the 4/4 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 130.126.255.11 (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)