User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 7

Happy New Year, Wbm1058!


Happy New Year! Wbm1058, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Hhkohh (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Hope your bots not down again in 2019 Hhkohh (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I can't promise 100%, but 99% or better uptime is a reasonable goal. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Actions at History of the Huns
Hello,

Can you explain exactly what happened at History of the Huns? There has been no discussion of deleting or merging this page, it's a new page only recently created.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Ermenrich, I found the redirect Hunnic Empire was listed at the top of Database reports/Broken section anchors. It was targeting the section and that section no longer existed in the Huns article, though there is a section simply titled . But before retargeting Hunnic Empire to that section, I noticed that there had been a recent WP:Summary style content split from Huns§History on 11 November 2018, and there is a similarly titled  section. However the infobox at the top of History of the Huns is titled Hunnic Empire, so it appears there may be some disagreement over whether the scope of the "Hunnic Empire" was limited to the "Unified rule under Attila" or is broader than that. Perhaps a distinction can be made between the broader-scoped "empire" and the narrower-scoped "unified empire". I didn't check to see whether you had discussed the matter before "launching" History of the Huns as the new main article on the (sub-)topic, but I viewed this as a reversal of the content merge of 25 November 2015 and a defacto page move of Hunnic Empire → History of the Huns which avoids using the apparently somewhat controversial title "Hunnic Empire". I history merged the content from the old Hunnic Empire article using the MergeHistory special page, since there is no overlapping history. Some navigation templates (Template:Empires, Template:History of Ukraine) were targeting Hunnic Empire; I changed those to pipe the link, e.g. for Empires:
 * – I don't think it's a good idea for navigation templates to target sections; these should only target major topics meriting stand-alone articles. So having your new "main article" on the topic solved that problem. Hope this is all satisfactory to you. Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! At first I hadn't realized what was merged in, but it's all clear to me now.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding recent revert
Regarding your revert...the version of the article at the time I made that edit (00:49, 29 September 2017) did not have a history section. It's been a while, so I can't recall exactly what happened, but there's an article at Country-of-origin labeling that was originally at the spelling "Country of Origin Labelling" and referred specifically to a US law/requirement (which is why it was capitalized), but there was a dispute as to whether the article should be about country-of-origin labelling generally/worldwide (which was already in the "Country of origin" article) and whether there should be an article about just the US law. I changed the redirect as part of the discussion at Talk:Country-of-origin labeling. I don't have time right now to figure out what I did and what has changed, but I think your edit was correct based on the content of that article now (but mine was correct when it was made in 2017). AHeneen (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for letting me know that. When I reverted your edit, I was just getting started; I ended up making some 50 other edits to clean this up. I moved the article about the US law from Country-of-origin labeling to Mandatory country-of-origin labeling of food sold in the United States. Feel free to review my edits if you like, and let me know about any issues you might find. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt
I made that edit to fix the RM, which was appearing at the bottom of the table at more than 17,000 days old. Changing the timestamp to UTC seemed to fix it. Did you do something behind the scenes?  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 01:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, look behind the scenes! wbm1058 (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Supah!  Paine   02:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Toyota Fortuner
When somebody undoes your edit and provides a halfway decent reason in the edit summary (ie not just a vandal outright trying to annoy people) then it usually means that there is a disagreement. WP:BRD suggests that the best course is to start a discussion on the talk and present your reasoning. Simply reinstating your edit more often devolves into an edit war with both sides dogmatically restoring their version with no actual thinking involved. A discussion also gives other editors a chance to add more points of view instead of just watching 2 gladiators fight to the death.  Stepho  talk 22:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you still disagree with any of my edits, please explain the problem and let's see if we can sort it out. I thought my edit summaries were sufficient explanation, but if not, then do let me know what the problem is. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don;t have any great problem if the hatnote is present or not present. I just noticed that it was being tossed backs and forwards. It that circumstance I normally see both sides get entrenched and rarely change their opinion. Points raised in edit summaries often get ignored and soon get replaced with insults. Or at least, that is what I see often. I was hoping to get the involved parties to talk instead of reacting. But if the problem has gone away of its own accord then I;m willingly to simply drop it.  Stepho  talk 05:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of Nantucket
Hi, please be advised that there is a proposal to move the Nantucket article back to "Nantucket, Massachusetts" at Talk:Nantucket. Note that the current name was determined by consensus a year ago at Talk:Nantucket. HopsonRoad (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There once was a man from Nantucket (or so I've heard). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Moscow Metro
I'm not sure whether there is an issue here, but you seem most likely to know (and you were the one who added the text about hosting moves on other pages at Requested moves/Controversial last month). Today I tried to close a multimove request at Talk:Moscow Metro, which was hosting a discussion on several train lines. To an untrained eye it looks like the request was worded correctly, including the addition of the "current1" field. However, when I clicked on the "direct move" link in the template as with a normal page move, it sent me to the Special:MovePage link for Moscow Metro rather than the train line that was "current1" in the request. Even worse, I trusted the template and put the move through, so the page that was supposed to be just hosting the discussion ended up at "new1" for almost eight hours. Is there a way to have the template not function this way, or to disable the direct move link in such cases? Dekimasu よ! 02:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding sooner, but just letting you know I haven't forgotten this; yes, Template:Requested move/dated doesn't handle this well. I'll see what I can do. wbm1058 (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ fixed – wbm1058 (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi wbm1058, thanks for the reply and for solving the issue! Dekimasu よ! 20:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Unclosed merge from 2013
Hi wbm1058, I'm trying to start a merge of Avar Khaganate into Pannonian Avars. However, as has been pointed out on the merge discussion, there is actually an unclosed merge discussion at Talk:Avar Khaganate from 2013. Other editors have suggested that this needs to be dealt with before we can proceed with the current merger discussion, so I was hoping that you, as an admin, might be able to close it for us or else give some guidance on how to continue (I'm not sure that it was a formally listed merge discussion to begin with, for one thing). Thank you!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * An other administrator has solved the issue, thank you!--Ermenrich (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Born2cycle. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Strange tag
A bot that I understand you run keeps putting a strange message at the top of the page Tonight at 8.30. Could you please stop it doing so? Many thanks.  Tim riley  talk   17:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ see Talk:Tonight at 8.30. wbm1058 (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll make a note on the bot page too.  Tim riley  talk   18:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Bones, Bones and Bones
Hi

Can you explain what you did please, and how the situation has been resolved.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * since I reverted your edit, did a round-robin page swap. I'd rather have seen this done by an administrator, as the page histories are now very messy and difficult to follow. There has been too much bold action there. Mashing up pages like this makes it very difficult to sort out the history. Disambiguations shouldn't generally be round-robined, as you end up with confusing page histories implying that editors circularly redirected   to  . When pages are moved properly, old redirects become part of the deleted history of the page, making it a lot easier for administrators to track and follow past page moves. This one hasn't been easy to keep stabilised.


 * 11:30, 9 April 2012 . . moved page Bones (disambiguation) to Bones: malplaced disambiguation page)
 * 01:08, 11 November 2008 moved Bones (disambiguation) to Bones: WP:MDP)

But then there was a 2013 RM that concluded that Bones should redirect to Bone as an R from plural. I don't see that either of the two admins who had previously made moves counter to that conclusion participated in that discussion. Now, I'm of the opinion that whenever I see this sort of move action on a title, that in of itself indicates that there is no primary topic. The default should always be to force disambiguation any time there is not a clear, undisputed, stable primary topic. Bones has not had a stable primary topic so it should be disambiguated. But I couldn't just boldly revert the previous discussion that concluded otherwise.

I've seen this sort of argument before, which disregards consideration of actual "what-links-here" evidence and past page-move activity, in favor of primary "dictionary" meanings:
 * teeth redirects to tooth, lungs, eyes, ears, feet, hands, legs, nostrils to singular likewise. Can't see any reason why bones should be an exception. In ictu oculi
 * Bones (TV series) is buried so deep on the disambiguation that at first I didn't find it. I'd assumed it would be prominently shown near the top of the page. I resorted to using my brower's search function to find it.
 * But anyhow, teeth (TV series), lungs (TV series), eyes (TV series), ears (TV series), feet (TV series), hands (TV series), legs (TV series), nostrils (TV series)... mostly red links, as I expected.
 * However, eyes and hands don't share this problem. Maybe the Bones TV series is a lot more popular than the Eyes and Hands series are, or is it because people have two eyes and two hands, but not just two bones? I don't know why Bones has this "problem", but it should be easy to acknowledge that it does have a problem with being the clear PT.

, what prompted you to make this round-robin move? I don't see anything in your editing history or edit summaries that tells me why you did it. You should have reviewed Talk:Bones before making any moves. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I fell across it as a WP:MALPLACED error. I can't remember why I found it; I made the move about two hours after I usually finish major editing for the day. I've checked the diffs in my 20 or so immediately preceding edits, but can see nothing obvious (I thought finding the page might have been a byproduct of finding a bad link to the DAB page, but apparently not; and I wouldn't normally have put a RR move off anyway). You can see the full sequence in this link to my contribution history. It was a clean RR move with no cut&paste. Narky Blert (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Narky Blert, so the bot added "Bones" to the MALPLACED list at 06:54, 7 January 2019, I reverted reverted Chaosdruid's edit that put it on the list at 20:31, 8 January 2019, you initiated your round-robin at 21:16, 13 January 2019, and "Bones" was removed from the list by another editor at 23:36, 13 January 2019 – less than a day before the bot would have done that. OK, I get it now. My bad for not manually removing it from the list rather than waiting for another editor or the bot to do it, but you should still confirm that the redirect is still malplaced and check for possible discussions or potential controversy before making page moves to fix malplaced redirects.


 * If you want to work the MALPLACED list you really should consider running for administrator. Wow, you're already over 200,000 edits, with 93% to mainspace... that's way ahead of me. What'ya say? If you're interested I'd like to nominate you (after running some more due diligence checks, but I'm not expecting to find any significant issues with making Requests for adminship/Narky Blert a blue link) – wbm1058 (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that I found Bones in the MALPLACED list. It feels more likely that I found an odd-looking link somewhere, opened it, and found myself looking at a (disambiguation) page with a redirect from the basename. MALPLACED is a subtype of WP:INTDABLINK, and I sleep with a copy of INTDABLINK under my pillow.
 * It's easy to chalk up huge numbers of edits if (a) you concentrate on small edits like fixing bad links to DAB pages and typos, and (b) have no life. (I'd have an edit summary %age better than 99.7 if I hadn't been careless when I first joined, and could be bothered to add summaries to new redirects (the autogenerated summary is perfectly adequate) and to edits in my sandboxes.)
 * Thank you for the offer. I'll bear it in mind. I've been offered adminship before, and turned it down on the grounds that I didn't want the extra responsibility. (Twice within three days, I got caught up in IP rangeblocks by WP:STEWARDs whose emails were closed. I couldn't post anywhere, including on my own Talk Page; so I couldn't even request unblock. I emailed from within WP (luckily, I could still do that) an admin I know, who rode to the rescue. I was offered adminship to exempt me from such bans; but settled for a time-limited WP:IPBE instead. Gory details at User talk:Narky Blert/2018) (In truth, I don't have the time to take on more than I do now. I cycle through Disambiguation pages with links. My first run took six months; there were bad links to something like 28,000 DAB pages (it was once much much worse), not including duplicates. I'm on my tenth run or thereabouts, and team effort has got that down to five days and below 3,000. See WP:TDD. If WP:DPL had one additional active member, I think we could hold that number below 1,000.) Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm just keeping quiet as I know absolutely nothing about all that lol ... but interesting to see what a mess I caused *blushes* Chaosdruid (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Talk:Bones (disambiguation). I'm keeping an eye on what links to "Bones". Already one link to disambiguate since this move closed less than a month ago. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Sdu (publishing company)
Just FYI at the time I made the change, there was no url in Wikidata, so it was displaying as No URL found. Please specify a URL here or add one to Wikidata. . That's why I removed it. Looks like somewhere along the way it was re-added. I obviously have no issue with you restoring it, but just wanted you to understand I didn't delete it just because I didn't see a parameter being supplied. One of the maintenance categories I follow is. Anyway, thanks for restoring it! -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem; FYI, I noticed that there was a working URL in the Sdu (publishing company) infobox (and has been since 2013) before I confirmed it was in Wikidata. Hmm, that's an annoying cosmetic bot edit, I wonder if that bot still has approval and is still doing that. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See Template talk:Official website/Archive 2. wbm1058 (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

216.186.252.38
Hi. There seems to be an IP user who happens to remove edits for no reason. He's been doing this under the articles of Sony Pictures Television, Universal Television, Entourage (film), and possibly others. Looks like he's been warned once. Can you please deal with that user?2600:1700:F280:4BB0:58E:2F1:9A67:57C2 (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see anything obvious telling me that they're editing in bad faith. Curiously, MCA/Universal redirects to MCA Inc. while MCA Universal redirects to Universal Pictures; who knew a single "/" character would have such a significant difference in meaning. So when they remove them from Universal Television they may have a valid point. I see nothing in the name to indicate it's television-specific, and not the name of the larger company which has a TV division. These corporate histories can get pretty confusing to keep track of after several sales of companies or divisions, and internal reorganizations. Start a discussion on the talk page(s) to sort it out. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

History merges and Wikidata
Hello, thanks very much for your history-merging work. However, could you please try to clean up the Wikidata links after you're done with each page? When pages are deleted here, a link to them is automatically deleted from Wikidata. They're not automatically restored however. Inspired by your edit to Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves, I added some text about Wikidata and cleaned up your links there up to 30 January my time. I don't have time to deal with them now, however. Just undoing your own edits would do the trick. Graham 87 01:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've gone back through my Wikidata history as far as last September. One more candidate for merging: Danny Paisley and the Southern Grass (Q60743251) and Dan Paisley and the Southern Grass (Q16873242). I'm not happy that the Wikidata system auto-deletes for me while not also auto-restoring, when my restores happen within a minute or two of my deletions. But as long as it's just a simple matter of reverting my "edits" there, I can do that, but I'll do them in batches as it's too inefficient to be constantly switching back and forth between enwiki and wikidata. I noted that a few of my deletion edits on wikidata were reverted by a bot; surely a bot could revert them all for me? wbm1058 (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * My last big effort with history-merging ended last August, when I emptied out the old Category:Possible cut-and-paste moves. I just checked some of those on Wikidata and they were mostly reverted within a day or two and nobody asked me to do it myself. I wonder what's different this time. It took me from April through August 2018 to work through the last 1,000 of those, and a lot of them were false positives, but I still recall doing a bunch of delete & restores to histmerge over the top of redirects. wbm1058 (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on that; I've done the Wikidata merge. Yeah I'm not the biggest fan of the current system either. I don't know why your August edits would've been automatically reverted but the current ones weren't ... all I know is that if I leave a Wikidata item hanging for more than a few hours (especially if it has lots of interwiki links!), bad things (TM) can happen. Graham 87 15:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Larissa (Thrace)
This place doesn't exist; the article is describing Larissa (Elis); I've nominated it for deletion so you can muster all the evidence you have that it existed or you have re-introduced a mistake or hoax into Wikipedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019
The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Senate (disambiguation)
Hello, you edit protected a page called "The Senate"; the content of that page is now located at "Senate (disambiguation)".

Since was moved away from, which was involved in an edit war concerning the target of the redirect , please unprotect the page, as it no longer occupies the location "The Senate". (Thus no longer concerns the target of a redirect called "The Senate")

So, while leaving "The Senate" edit protected, such is not required at "Senate (disambiguation)"

-- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ wbm1058 (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Capellmeister
Capellmeister was the correct spelling at an earlier time (compare a cappella), so I doubt it's useful to change to a more modern version when talking about history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry about that. flagged it as a misspelling. I realized it was likely an English translation of the original German word and I usually check Wiktionary to confirm such assertions of misspellings, but this time I neglected to. I've retagged Capellmeister with R from alternative spelling. Feel free to revert any of my changes that switched to the German spelling. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Gerda, there were only 5 pages with this linked spelling that I changed this way. wbm1058 (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m very sorry for my wrong edit. [[File:Italy.png]] イヴァン スクルージ 九十八 （会話）[[File:Italy.png]] 14:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, we had a recent discussion also about Cöthen vs. Köthen, - both are right in a way, no need to waste time "correcting" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Boeing 777X launch.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Boeing 777X launch.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your close of A Certain Magical Index
While you didn't move the pages, you did close the discussion. If you look at the actual conversation, you'll see that IJBall and myself commented that the proposed version does not follow WP:NCTV as it is a combination of two different conflicting styles. As such, the move was incorrect and the RM should not have closed supporting it seeing as we were the only ones commenting there and we both didn't support it. --Gonnym (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Gonnym, yes, I saw that. It's kind of an awkward situation. An less-experienced editor requesting a non-compliant move and another inexperienced editor moving to the requested pages out-of-process. There was just thin participation (four editors). Since no move at all is a nonstarter due to the inconsistent naming convention, and to minimize the number of unnecessary moves, I suggest that in lieu of me relisting it that if you and can agree on which of your two suggested conventions is better, then one of you should simply submit a new RM, and then hopefully the other two will go along with your proposal. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Chaff algorithm
Hi! Thanks for noticing the erroneous use of " " at "Chaff algorithm". It seems that AnomieBOT has deleted " " when it added the date. I consider this a bug. Do you know where to complain about it? Many thanks in advance. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Jochen. is the bot operator. The notice at the top of User talk:Anomie says "If you want AnomieBOT to do something, please ask at User talk:AnomieBOT. Best, wbm1058 (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you pinged me, Special:Diff/891668038 should prevent that from happening again with clarify span. It's usually an error when a date or a date keyword like "now" appears as the unnamed 1 to a maintenance template, so the bot moves it to date by default. Anomie⚔ 12:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grand Inquisitor, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Miranda, D. Pedro II and Guarda ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Grand_Inquisitor check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Grand_Inquisitor?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of CV Travel


A tag has been placed on CV Travel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Request For Protected User:Goodd-002 Account
Hello Sir, I want you to secure my User account so that nobody else can do so except for Confirm Abugors. Please accept my request and protect User:Goodd-002 my page so that IP users can do so much And edit allow only Administrator and Account Owner thanks. your Goodd-002  (chatme)  07:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Per, base user pages (for example, the page User:Example, and not User:Example/subpage or User talk:Example) are automatically protected from creation or editing by unconfirmed and IP users. I can give you higher protection if a need exists, but the protection policy says that pages in user space should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected. See Requests for comment/Protect user pages by default for the community discussion about this matter. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Autarchism
Hi there. Perhaps I misread your edit summary, but I didn't "redirect a (disambiguation) to an article", I simply changed the format of the link to the dab page to the term with (disambiguation) after it, as per WP:INTDABLINK. Am I missing something? Or misinterpreting that guideline?  Onel 5969  TT me 22:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The hatnote on top of the article said "Autarchy (disambiguation)" redirects here. For the economic concept, see Autarky. There should never be a hatnote on top of an article that says something (disambiguation) redirects here; something (disambiguation) should always redirect to a disambiguation page. Autarchy (disambiguation) redirects to Autarchy. wbm1058 (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it now. I misread the hatnote, and thought it was saying "for other uses, see..."  Not sure how I missed it, will be more careful.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Canyon
Hi

I wondered if you could point me to a discussion on the page move: gorge -> canyon

I was mainly interested as I feel there may be more to this than meets the eye. For example this NatGeo article

Though it is sort of counter-intuitive as both the Cheddar Gorge (UK) is like a mini Grand Canyon, it was formed by collapse.

There may be more of a case from the geological definitions which I am looking into currently.

Cheers Chaosdruid (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Chaosdruid, there was no previous discussion. I didn't consider my move to be potentially controversial. These are both loanwords or loan translations in English. Canyon is from Spanish and Gorge is from French. The words are just synonyms, and canyon is the main article for Category:Canyons and gorges. My previous activity there was because this edit which turned the primary topic redirect into a disambiguation, made the hatnote on top of Canyon, "Gorge" redirects here... a "lying hatnote", which is something I patrol for. I've just made some more tweaks to help clear up any confusion – see . Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thx for that- I thought I had seen a definition where a canyon was more u shaped than v shaped, but it was probably from an old geology book and might well be de facto out of date :¬) It is a little difficult as English English started off as French in the 11th & 12th centuries - so some words are not really loanwords, just words we used because we used to be French lol ... It confuses people when you tell them that Agincourt was actually a French on French engagement! Chaosdruid (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Companies listed on the Euronext Paris


A tag has been placed on Category:Companies listed on the Euronext Paris requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Moved & merged to Category:Companies listed on Euronext Paris. wbm1058 (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The Realness
Thanks for clarifying in the edit summary here. Not sure how I missed that, seeing as I made the move request that led to Realness no longer pointing there. Anyway, keep up the good work! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Global Health
Hi, actually, if there are just 2 pages to disambiguate, things should be done with a hatnote, not a separate dab page. "Global Health" should continue to be a redirect... --Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus primary topic; too many inexperienced editors use title case in infoboxes and as titles of academic departments at universities. Nobody cleaned up after these edits, because when a primary topic is assumed they aren't flagged for attention. Between 2006–2010 this redirected to the generic term. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Disambiguation
Hi. I wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit, because it can result in no spaces being displayed. See the explanation at Template talk:Disambiguation. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Kaleerein
Hi! What's going on here, I seem to have missed something? The page was nominated for G14 deletion, but was not eligible. Instead of redirecting it to the disambiguated title, which would have been obviously silly, I moved that page there instead. But I see that you've undone that, and I wondered why? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , Talk:Kaleerein (2018 TV series) was populating Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects, a category I patrol. The talk page for the disambiguation was blocking the move. I found that there was a deleted history for a disambiguation sitting under the primary topic, so I (1) moved the PT back to its disambiguated title, (2) restored the disambiguation. (3) moved the disambiguation back to the parenthetical (disambiguation) used when there is a primary topic, (4) moved the PT – and its talk page – back to the base title. I was about to tag the disambiguation with one other topic, but then you deleted it which I suppose is fine as a third topic is unlikely to show up in the short term. I also made this edit. Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Cromlêh
You restored Cromlêh, but then you created Cromlech as a duplicate of Cromlêh? Shouldn't Cromlêh be a redirect to Cromlech now? I'm confused.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but the citation for William Borlase didn't actually support the assertion that a cromlech is distinct from a dolmen. That, with the Wiktionary hatnote, is why I redirected it without bringing any of the content over. -Apocheir (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Apocheir, I'm not an expert on the subject either. Cromlêh is a redirect to Cromlech now. I merged some content. My participation here was triggered by this edit by asserting that "A cromlech is not a synonym for Dolmen. It is a separate type of megalithic structure". You two may sort it out, and I will only become further involved if you want my help in moderating or if more edits are made that trigger navigation issues that I patrol for. Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Reports
Please come help out on Administrator intervention against vandalism for a little. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Khademiyan
Was I correct to tag as CSD G2? I noticed you deleted as G7, and I was wondering why that was.

It seems clear to me that this page was eligible for speedy deletion, because it only consisted of a userspace-specific template. However, looking over the CSD more closely, it seems like it would have been appropriate for me to tag with A3.

The reason why I now think G2 might have been misguided on my part is because of intent: the page looked more like an accidental creation than an actual attempt to "test how editing" works, but I wasn't sure if intent mattered at the time I was tagging it. Retro ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 13:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . I understand your confusion as only administrators can view deleted history. But, as showing that makes it easier for me to explain, and I see no harm from doing so, here it is:
 * 19:34, 14 July 2019 . . سیدحبیب (talk | contribs | block) empty (←Blanked the page) Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Blanking, speedy deletion template removed, PHP7
 * 19:26, 14 July 2019 . . Retro (talk | contribs | block) 110 bytes (Clarity.)
 * 19:22, 14 July 2019 . . Retro (talk | contribs | block) 81 bytes (Nominating for speedy deletion: CSD G2) Tag: PHP7
 * 18:43, 14 July 2019 . . سیدحبیب (talk | contribs | block) 20 bytes (←Created page with ' User page board') Tag: very short new article


 * You probably missed that the page creator blanked the page a few minutes after you tagged it for speedy deletion. I generally favor using the least potentially controversial rationale for administrative actions, and only one valid reason is needed for deletion. So while I didn't really address the issue of whether G2 (test page) was valid for this case, I will say now that I agree that G2 would have been valid in my view if the creator hadn't blanked the page they created. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well thank you. My launched in January 2014 and made over 16,000 edits that month; they were just repairing bad links for the spam blacklist, so I have no idea which of those edits might have saved your bacon. Or maybe you're referring to one of its newer tasks that have launched since 2016. My other two bots launched in 2012 and 2013. Hard to believe it's been that long already, but my  will celebrate its seventh birthday a month from now. wbm1058 (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

President of Australia and President of Canada
Hi Wbm1058, just wanted to let you know that I removed President of Australia from President of Canada and visa versa. Since disambiguation pages are intended to help readers distinguish between articles with similar titles, these links did not seem helpful. Leschnei (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The Standard Motor Company
I have just found this puzzling notification yet all seems to be well. Can you tell me what is planned in more detail? Thanks
 * The Wikipedia page Standard Motor Company has been deleted on
 * 7 August 2019 by Wbm1058, see
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Motor_Company.
 * Editor's summary: set up for history merge


 * Contact the editor:
 * mail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Wbm1058
 * wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wbm1058

Eddaido (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm working the queue at WikiProject History Merge; more specifically this was #132 on the list @ Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge/02.

My actions are recorded in the Merge log I actually merged only one revision; you can see at the start of the page history there are two identical revisions by the same editor; I merged the (first) edit with the 08:50, 28 November 2003 timestamp. Arguably this wasn't really necessary in this particular case as there was already full attribution recorded for that editor, but I performed the merge anyway so that it wouldn't reappear in that infrequently generated bot-generated report, which was created by who hasn't edited since January. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 11:54, 7 August 2019 merged Standard (car) into Standard Motor Company (revisions up to 08:50, 28 November 2003) (bot-reported cut-paste at WP:WikiProject History Merge)

Thank you for your very full explanation. Eddaido (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI
I was an "official" OTRS agent for years. Missvain (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry, I stand corrected. When I checked the list, I neglected to look for your former user name. If you can fix this, feel free. BTW, I liked your old name better; your current ID doesn't strike me as very flattering. wbm1058 (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Iowa straw polls
My concern derived from seeing some references on the web to the current poll using the old title … but I appreciate your perspective on this. Humanengr (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Wow, it's been four years already; I'm ready to graduate! Wow, you've been quite prolific... 250,000 edits since you started editing on 17 June 2015... just two months before I became an admin. wbm1058 (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Rangpur
Hello, you have recently reverted my move on Rangpur. If we browse through google news, all the results points at Rangpur, Bangladesh. Would it satisfy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC if we open a RM? Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Za-ari-masen, sure, feel free to start a discussion; after a week it should be determined by a neutral editor whether the city in Bangladesh is the primary topic. But, keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not Wikinews, and the other main criterion for deciding whether a topic is primary is: A topic is primary for a term with respect to if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. Rangpur (fruit) and the historical site Rangpur, India are not likely to be frequently in the news, but nonetheless these appear to be important topics of long-term significance for an encyclopedia to cover. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Re:"Laicization" listed at Redirects for discussion
Dear User:Wbm1058, thank you for your message on my talk page. I have left my opinion at the discussion that you initiated and have also reverted the article to the WP:STATUSQUO version. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation RM discussion
Since you participated in this discussion about disambiguation pages just shy of two months ago, would you be willing to voice your thoughts on this move discussion that deals with the same issue? I believe you would have something to say about it.  Event horizon51  (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't participate in that discussion, but I concur with the outcome. These need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. This is a grey area. Why is Big Bang a proper name, while absolute zero is not? Just a rhetorical question. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Finnic peoples
Hi, thank you very much for your help on the Finnic peoples article a while ago. An editor has renamed the article back to Baltic Finns now, quoting information I cannot verify, because they have not provided sources. I cannot rename the article back on my own because they've also created another Finnic peoples (disambiguation) page. I have added more sources on the talk page, but the editor has provided no sources of their own to support the move. Are you able to chip in and offer your opinon? Thank you. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Blomsterhagens can't be bothered to read the refs in the leads of the articles they've edited, and claims that they don't exist. I welcome an informed discussion, but this is ridiculous. — kwami (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I replied HERE. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you check these drafts.
Draft:Faraz Farooqui and Draft:Hammad Farooqui. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.79.127 (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixing redirects using Navigation Popups
Hi! I have a bit of a throwback for you. I finally got to the December 2016 (!) feature request this feature request about fixing redirects and piped links. I changed it from "Redirects to" where "Redirects" was a link, to "Redirects to: (fix target or target & label)", where "target" and "target & label" do what you think they do. Let me know if this is what you were thinking of. The new version is at User:Enterprisey/popups.js, which you can install by first installing script-installer, then navigating to the script page and clicking "Install" at the top. Thanks for the feature request! Enterprisey (talk!) 08:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Noting the code changes and that I needed to uncheck the box for Navigation popups in my Gadgets Preferences to test this. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking good, or are more fixes needed? Enterprisey (talk!) 07:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Enterprisey there's a glitch, I can show it to you in person... easier than taking a screenshot. wbm1058 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking good! Barnstar delivered! – wbm1058 (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of Star Trek fictional works
Thank you for deleting one of my many drafts. I also submitted Draft:List of Star Trek fictional works for deletion using the same template as the other. Why was it not deleted as well? What's the best template to apply to the draft so it is deleted? Rdzogschen (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Rdzogschen. I need to follow deletion policy; the relevant supplement is Drafts. I deleted some of your drafts under WP:CSD: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page, as you were the only substantive contributor to those drafts. But in this case, WP:RDRAFT applies: Redirects that are a result of page moves from the draft namespace to the main namespace should be retained. Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Dang. Should'a known that. Thanks again. :-) Rdzogschen (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Per discussion
Per our discussion a couple days ago:, Rob Quist and Mission Mountain Wood Band. Montanabw (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

HULC
Thanks - I changed my mind as to how to do this one, and forgot to unpick one of the changes I'd made! I realised that the exosuit is the Primary Topic for HULC, and that hatnotes would do it all. Well spotted. Pam D  20:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Bahá’í literature and List of writings of Baháʼu'lláh
Hi. Because of rd template changes, I couldn't move back, and the difference is not easily visible, so I tacked on parentheses that would be visible. The titles should contain the letter hamza, not the curly quote mark, which has no business in WP article titles. — kwami (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

responding here for you too.
 * I've reverted these bold moves back to the status-quo titles, as Kwami requested. See User talk:Kwamikagami. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!

 * Thanks for all you do to spread holiday cheer on Wikipedia. Merry Christmas to you 2! Snowman by mimooh.svg wbm1058 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Silence Breakers.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Silence Breakers.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

2600:8805:5800:311:C94A:58C6:EEA9:C6B7
Could you please block user:2600:8805:5800:311:C94A:58C6:EEA9:C6B7 when you get a chance. She attempted to vandalize according to the filter log after her final warning. Now she is using profanity on her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at Special:Contributions/2600:8805:5800:311:C94A:58C6:EEA9:C6B7, I only see edits in user talk namespace, so I'm not clear on what the fuss is about. wbm1058 (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how they could have done something to merit two warnings for disruptive editing @ 19:56, 24 December 2019 – why two warnings within the same minute? – when their first recorded edit wasn't until four minutes later, @ 20:00, 24 December 2019. And I don't see any deleted contributions, either., can you sort out what's going on here? I don't like to see someone wasting my time, especially someone with over 200K edits. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wbm1058 - Did you see the edit filter log for this IP?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. I'm not really up to speed on how to use edit filters, that's not really my thing. Can you give me a link? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wbm1058 - Sure, no problem. Filter log  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see: edit filter log. So all the bad edits were stopped by the filter before they ever went live? wbm1058 (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wbm1058 - Correct.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you guys are on top of controlling real-time vandals that we have filters to detect. My beat is patrolling things that the clue-bots and filters don't detect. This stuff often goes unreverted for days until I get around to patrolling it (I can't patrol everything at once!) – some of what I detect is vandalism, but a lot is good-faith errors and omissions. And sometimes I find ways to implement new "patrols". wbm1058 (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What we do not appreciate is being told we are wasting your time. CLCStudent (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I just don't have much of any experience with filters and filter logs. I'm aware of their existence but I need to take time to get up to speed on their use. wbm1058 (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. :-) Let me know if I can be of assistance with anything else, and I'll be happy to help. Cheers ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Bots/Requests for approval/Bot1058 6
Bots/Requests for approval/Bot1058 6 has been approved! Please see the BRFA for details. Happy editing! -- The SandDoctor Talk 10:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)