User talk:Dreamy Jazz/Archive 2

As edited by SporkBot ^{talk | contributions} on 6 01 2021

1.44.0-wmf.4 (a8dd895)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

sorry

I was translating the page by mistake I submitted that hope you understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamskylord (talk • contribs) 11:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Iamskylord: Of course I understand, mistakes happen. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

120.158.13.84

l am Kian's mother and l would like you to remove that last statement you have on Wikipedia about 'dating an instram model and breaking up with her in October' immediately!!!

this is a false statement and very upsetting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.158.13.84 (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok. You can remove it. It was added without a source, possibly maliciously. I had reverted your edit because you did not use a edit summary to explain why you removed the information. If you had, then editors could see that you removed the information for this reason. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Morpeth Crest of Arms.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Morpeth Crest of Arms.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Hello. I was unsure what to do with this image. Per [1] all images on this site are OK for use on Wikipedia, but am unsure on the license to use. I will add this info to the file. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The site says Not for Wikipedia - "For commercial purposes permission of the council as well as the webmaster of this site is always needed". We only allow commercial usage licenses, the most strict we can use is cc-by-sa-4.0 - see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Ok. I've G7'ed the file. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

78.150.18.133

Hi Mr Jazz I did not need a new reference because the existing reference (Carol's own Home Page) was sufficient. If you read her own Home Page, you will see that she is now a clairvoyant. The reference required by Wikipedia is already on the Wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.18.133 (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Using an edit summary can allow other editors to see what your intentions were in the edit. Adding information, without sources will get the edit reverted. The information you added did not have a source near it and I cannot find this information on her home page either. Please find this source, include it in the article and use an edit summary if you readd the information. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of Erdős number list edit

Hi,

As you've probably guessed, I'm new and would appreciate discussion as to why you rejected my edit. I believe it's factually correct and within the guidelines of the page. If the comment was less self-depracatingly British, like below, would that help?

Comment: Dr Tony Robinson is a prolific author (see https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=UPV1LHUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra) and is placed at 3 due to collaboration with David J. C. MacKay in publication "Bayesian methods for mixtures of experts. Steve Waterhouse, David MacKay and Tony Robinson. In D. S. Touretzky, M. C. Mozer, and M. E. Hasselmo, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 8. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996."

I'll also get the syntax right first time next time, like this Tony Robinson. I didn't write my own article and most of the comments on it are valid. If it's absolutely necessary to tidy that up first I can do so, but it's somewhat self-referential in that one of the things to tidy up is the many other wikipedia articles that refer to my work but don't point to the page.

Tony

DrTonyR (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@DrTonyR: I think I might have pressed the wrong button at the time, but adding yourself to an article is against our policies on conflict of interest editing. You should (however, I am assuming good faith as you probably didn't know about this) have suggested this in the talk page of the article so that other editors can agree or disagree to whether what you added is neutral. My recommendation is to not edit articles or add links to articles that you are closely connected with (i.e. the article about you). If you have further questions or want clarification, just ask. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Dreamy Jazz:, the conflict of interest policy makes sense and I see there is a Wikipedia:Edit_requests mechanism for this. I'll learn how that works and give it another go some time. DrTonyR (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

AJRV 7873215640

👍 Thanks so much for the plate of cookie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJRV 7873215640 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@AJRV 7873215640: You are welcome. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused

How do you add an article on here? People are talking about copying and pasting... Can you not type it straight into Wikipedia? Deepmaniac80 (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Deepmaniac80: I am slightly unsure what you are asking. To create an article you can use the article wizard and per our copy and paste policies, copying and pasting text not released in the public domain is a copyright violation and will be removed. If you have further questions or wish to clarify your original question don't hesitate to ask. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Vivien Keszthelyi Wikipedia biography - Issues

Dear DreamyJazz,

I would like to improve Vivien Keszthelyi's Wikipedia page by removing the boxes regarding the issues. I would like to ask for your guidance how I can do that effectively.

1. On the 13th of December it was nominated for deletion for the second time with the reason: "Amateur driver who fails WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria." I looked into the criteria and the 3rd point states: "Competed in a series or race of worldwide or national interest (for example, the American Championship or 24 Hours of Le Mans)." - I believe Vivien Keszthelyi meets this criteria as she competed in the Audi TT Cup in 2017 and the Audi Sport Seyffarth R8 LMS Cup in 2018, both of which were part of the DTM (Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters). I believe a Grand Touring driver should not be called amateur by any means.

2. "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject."

Since this issue, the article has benn translated from the Hungarian page, which is marked on the Hungarian site as a "controlled page". I have seen various modifications by diferent users as well. What should I do to solve this issue permanently?

3. "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments" Please refer to number 2. My question would be the same. What other changes should be made, if I the original (and checked) Hungarian page has already been translated completely?

Thank you in advance for your kind help. --Darinian (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Your closure of the discussion on the Talk:Stokes' theorem page

Hi,

I find that both arguments you provided when you closed the requested move discussion are misleading (to the nature of discussion) and possibly biased.

1. Your first argument was: "Per the WP:COMMMONNAME in mathematics".

This has been clearly addressed in my original nomination – and none of the people who opposed it, contradicted that directly. The only thing that was ever done was to just re-iterate WP:COMMONNAME and ignore the "common name" vs. "common spelling" distinction. So clearly people preferred to apply the WP:COMMONNAME policy which is not relevant in this case, and ignore the WP:MOS which is relevant. I don't see how any "oppose" comment that failed to explicitly address this distinction can be construed to be anything but a variation of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude (in this case, "not liking" the move proposal).

2. Your second argument was: "Per ... WP:SNOW".

A. It is quite strange to bring this up – since the votes have been 3 in "support" vs. 5 "oppose". With this distribution it's hard to see how you made the conclusion there was a "snowball's chance in hell" for the proposal to be accepted.

B. Considering the proposal is far from being crazy and is based on specific long-standing Wikipedia policies (MOS:POSS as part of WP:MOS) which were not contradicted by other editors, it's far from clear that the proposal didn't have any serious merit like you claimed with your WP:SNOW reference.

C. It's also quite clear that despite the past undiscussed moves in the opposite direction (Stokes's -> Stokes') there were discussions that actually took place and resulted in the move in the proposed direction. So again, it's far from crazy to propose what I proposed.

Having said this, I don't think that your closing of the discussion was adequate – definitely not with the summary you provided. Would you re-consider and re-open, or should I go straight to the WP:Move review? cherkash (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Cherkash, hello and thanks for your concerns.

In answer to 1:

I am of the opinion that the difference between the two names is enough for a common name. This is because the current name is actually grammatically incorrect. This incorrect grammar used over and over shows that this is a common name, as sources are actively using the clearly grammatically incorrect name. Furthermore, readers will know the theorem by the grammatically incorrect name, due to the overwhelming use of the current article title: Is this not a classic situation of a common name?

Because so many sources use "Stokes'" and not "Stoke's" and my reasoning above, WP:COMMONNAME does apply here. To combat this you need to provide sources that the name you propose, which you have not.

I am of the opinion that WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not apply here, as there are many sources which support the current name. It's not just that the editor does "not like it" and even if part of their motivation for a oppose was that they don't like it, the sources backing them up make this problem a moot point.

In answer to 2:

I do feel that WP:SNOW was not be reasonable after all, as the nomination was not flawed. I will strike this from my closing statement. If I have upset you in any way, this was not the intended meaning. What I was trying to convey was that this RM was going to be closed as not moved if left open for longer and that it had not been relisted.

Although I will retract WP:SNOW, I do not feel you have provided (in the nom or now) sources to combat the strong common name of the current page name. If you desire, feel free to send to move review. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz:

Your answer to 1 implies that you think the theorem is named after "Stoke" – and hence the proper possessive spelling would be "Stoke's". This is not the case: the theorem is actually named after George Stokes, hence my argument for a singular noun's possessive.

In this light, would you mind now re-reading my original nomination? You could also see how all the arguments/reasons brought up by the opposing editors failed to notice the very distinction on which my proposal was based.

cherkash (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Cherkash. I don't think you understand what I meant above:

I completely agree and think that the current article name is not grammatically correct, but the overwhelming common name counteracts this and that the deliberate grammatical mistake leads WP:COMMMONNAME to apply here, IMO. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cherkash: Didn't mean for that to come out so aggressively in the wikitext. Emphasis is so that you can be clear on my argument. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz. You clearly mentioned "Stoke's" vs. "Stokes'" in your first reply above – this dichotomy would be true only if the person after whom the theorem is named was named Stoke. This is not the case: it's George Stokes.

So the choice is between "Stokes' " and "Stokes's" – in which case there's no disagreement about the common name of the theorem (as both forms imply it's "a theorem attributed to someone named Stokes"). The disagreement is only about how to spell the possessive form of the singular noun "Stokes". As any spelling disputes go, the WP:MOS rules on such matters, and nothing else (not even the WP:COMMONNAME) – so the most we do in such cases, is acknowledge the common misspelling in the article itself, but the article title and the text should be using "Stokes's" form of the possessive (again, see the MOS:POSS for guidance on this).

Moreover, it's not the "deliberate grammatical mistake" as you asserted above, but rather a common misspelling of a "singular noun possessive ending in -s/-z/-x". Since you seem to be unfamiliar with this spelling debate – the one that the manuals of style (MOS) of different publishing houses resolve differently – you may want to familiarize yourself with it (e.g. here, as well as in multiple at-length debates among Wikipedia editors over time that I can dig up references to, if you are interested). The bottom line is, the Wikipedia's chosen style – and spelling is an issue of style in this case – is guided by MOS:POSS that clearly states that

For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending with an s, add 's

cherkash (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Cherkash. I understand that the current name is incorrectly spelt. In reference to MoS having precedence over common name, in my understanding, it does not as common name is a policy and MoS is a guideline.

Even if the the misspelling is common, this does not detract that this name is still commonly used. I have not seen a source which supports this new name. I would support the move if enough sources are shown to counteract the pretty much unanimous use of "Stokes'". Wikipedia is not the place where names of theorems are changed: it is up to the sources to do that. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz. You must admit that "I have not seen a source..." is a very weak argument. Here! You can see plenty of them: google ;) So now you have seen them, would you acknowledge that both versions (Stokes' and Stokes's) are used – and hence the choice is a stylistic one? cherkash (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Cherkash, searching for "Stoke's theorem" brings up only 2 pages using your version compared with 17 using the current name (and this is when I search for the proposed name). This is the same when searching for "Stokes' theorem". Of course, this may be different for you. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Cherkash. Also the problem with your search is that you are limiting the results to only pages that contain the proposed name (so not "Stokes' theorum"). If you compare the number of pages for both: Stokes's theorem gives you ~37,000 results, whereas "Stoke's theorem" gives ~319,000 results (through Google). So the majority (at least 88%) of sources use only the current article's name (otherwise they would show up in the other search too). Also, from looking down the list from "Stokes's law" a few of these sources have this as an alternative spelling. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Cherkash: Furthermore, if you can't show that there is sufficient use of the proposed name to counteract the current name's claim of the common name, then I won't be re-opening the discussion (so you would have to send it to move review if you wanted to advance further without enough sources). If you can, I will be more than happy to re-open or even close as move depending on how many and the strength of these sources. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Cherkash To clarify, I do think that both names are used, but I feel from the evidence above "Stoke's law" is more common. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I'm not trying to compare how many times each version appears in search results. Frequentist analysis like this is troublesome in itself, but that was beyond the point I made above with the google link. What I did was simply answered your "I have not seen..." with the examples for you to see. You can't claim "I haven't seen them" anymore – which is what I jokingly called "a very weak argument" ;) Now you have seen the examples, you can't use the same argument anymore – it simply has no leg to stand on.

So as you can see, both names are "common". And there are plenty sources that use each of the two choices (unlike "Stoke's", which is clearly erroneous and basically no one uses it, just like you said). So the issue boils down – just like I said in my original nomination – not to "what the common name is", but to "what the spelling of this common name should be". And here again, it's not an issue addressed by WP:COMMONNAME but rather by WP:MOS. cherkash (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, with your arguments about frequencies of use of one spelling vs. the other, you've now effectively started making arguments of your own on why you support "oppose" or "support" side.

Moreover, with your statement of "I will be more than happy to ... close as move depending on how many and the strength of these sources" you are effectively willing to become a sole arbiter on how this discussion should be resolved. You are effectively saying: "make an argument to me, and if I like it I will rule on the outcome".

I don't think this is where this should go. I think you should not have closed this discussion. This is why:

• You clearly didn't understand the arguments made in my original move proposal – or misconstrued them

• To demonstrate my previous point: all I've essentially done in this discussion here, was to educate you on why exactly your closure was not proper

• You were not familiar with the basic consequences of the rules (specifically, WP:MOS and MOS:POSS) that I explicitly mentioned in my proposal

So you've acted on a whim and closed the discussion based on how you felt about the issue after looking at it superficially.

If you look at my first message to you at the top of this thread, this is exactly why I talked to you in the first place, and what specifically I asked you to re-consider: that you had closed the discussion improperly and suggested you admit to that and re-open it. cherkash (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Cherkash Frequency analysis of phrases (in my experience) is often a way that a common name is determined. I still feel that if 88% of all sources on the subject only support "Stokes'", then this is the common name. I do think that "Stokes's" is used, but not enough to make this the common name.

I do understand that MOS:POSS wants the name to be "Stokes's", but as the manual of style is a guideline, exceptions to it are allowed when a consensus is found for the exception. In this case the RM is that consensus. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 07:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

If this is how you feel, then you should have expressed your position in the discussion, rather than close it. This is really what I've asked you from the beginning: to admit that you prematurely closed it and to re-open it. cherkash (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Cherkash. I understand that I am in favour of not moving in this case, but because I was (at the time) an uninvolved page mover, then I was well within my rights to be able to close the discussion when a consensus had been reached. I felt and feel that a consensus had been met.

My original reasoning on the matter was based on the support and oppose votes as well as some light research. Through this discussion, I have done more of my own investigations, which has now lead me to formulate my personal opinion on the matter with my own reasoning. If the discussion was to be closed now, I would no longer be an uninvolved editor. My formulating my personal opinion after closing does not affect the validity of my closure. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Cherkash, furthermore, the RM had been open for the required length of 7 days and was in the "Elapsed" section of the RM page. Therefore, the RM could be closed (I only relist when I feel no consensus has been reached or I feel that it would do with more input. In this case I did not feel that either of these were the case). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe the consensus had been reached when you closed it. None of the opposing editors have explicitly addressed the points raised in the move proposal – either because, like yourself initially, they failed to consider/understand the subtleties of whether it was the grammar/style issue (what I referred to as "common spelling") vs. a possible disagreement on the "common name" (which it was not – the common name was never in question) – or because they followed a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

On the other side, the supportive editors actually understood the issue raised, e.g. Dicklyon has participated in similar discussions in the past, and it was clear from their comment that they understood what the issue was.

So the voting/discussion at the point you decided to close it, was a bit like apples and oranges still, and it hadn't had a chance to stabilize yet. cherkash (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Cherkash. Ok. I don't think I will reopen the RM. If you want, feel free to carry out a WP:Move review. No hard feelings against you, but I'm acting on my understanding of guidelines for closing a RM. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Cherkash that the close was inappropriate on several counts. Possibly a "no consensus" close would make sense, but this one did not. Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Dicklyon, ok thanks for your input Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Cherkash Ok. After giving myself time to reconsider my decisions, I will reopen this discussion and vote in it instead. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for Welcoming me to Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Justin Giebel (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Aaron Justin Giebel You are welcome. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Portal maintenance

Hi DJ, thank you for alerting me to the portal maintenance tags. I hadn't picked up that there was a deadline on such tags and that portals cut across to automatic maintenance within 2 weeks of notification. That seems a bit sharp; especially if the maintainer is away on holiday or ill for a few weeks. Bermicourt (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: Hello. It had been agreed when setting up the template and added to the tracking category (by me in June 2018). I can't remember exactly when the discussion for this occurred. On Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals/Archive_6#Portal_Maintainers suggestions for inactivity are made: The Transhumanist suggests a year of portal activity and 6 months WP activity, with Pbsouthwood suggesting 3 months, when the user has no wikibreak template and unsuccessful attempts had been made for email communications. Two weeks was just because it sounded like a good number from my point of view and I am happy to change it, especially in light of this discussion. I would appreciate your opinion on this. (Same with The Transhumanist and Pbsouthwood). Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: I've been thinking a lot about the conversion of portals where distinct elements would be lost in the conversion. And I'm of the mind that if someone/anyone doesn't want a portal converted because of concern that something will be lost in translation, we should find ways to preserve those features, whatever they may be.

The Germany-related portals are distinct, with their own elements. It is obvious that someone put a lot of work and thought into their navigation-intensive list structures. Another group of portals that someone has expressed concern about are the Canada-related portals, which have custom coloring that would also be a shame to lose. The difference is that the Canada portals don't have a dedicated maintainer. But that shouldn't matter. Existing features and styles shouldn't be cut as if we were mowing a lawn, if anyone objects to such mowing. Mowed lawns are nice. Mowed gardens, not so much.

I, for one, intend to treat any portal that someone considers to be a garden, as a garden.    — The Transhumanist   07:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very reassuring. I have a couple of thoughts in relation to that and my discussion with Dreamy Jazz above:

• I maintain about 30 portals. In practice, having set them up, that means I keep an eye on them. I'm not constantly playing with them - they don't generally need that, especially as I've arranged for material to rotate monthly in many cases - a trick I learned from German Wikipedia. So 'inactivity' isn't necessarily a problem if the portal is working well. Clearly there's a limit.
• Based on that my recommendation would be that, provided a portal is in good shape, we could probably set the interval for inactivity at one year. I'd certainly be happy to review the Germany ones annually on top of any maintenance I've been doing. And I'd also suggest a longer time than 2 weeks for the maintainer(s) to respond in case of absence due to illness etc. Maybe a month. If there's no response, then I'd message the relevant WikiProject and get their views on automatization (is that a word?) or willingness to provide editors willing to maintain it. That also raises the profile of the portal at the WikiProject and could result in keen editors making further improvements.
• Back to the Germany portals: I do want to steadily improve them so e.g. where a portal doesn't have rotating articles and images, that's something I'll add in time. One improvement I'd like to make is to add the lede from the main article where that isn't already happening and I'd like a pointer as to how to do that.
• Over time I want to get my head around the other automated features you've introduced and see where they can be dovetailed into existing manual portals. I also created Portal:Card games as an experiment and, as a specialist in that area, I can already see where the automated portal could be improved, but am not sure how to do that. For example, it selects only one of at least 3 useful navboxes but I can't immediately see how to add the others.
• Hope that helps. Happy for any of the above points to be transferred to the Portals talk page if that's felt useful. Keep up the good work. Bermicourt (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  When there are several navboxes, think about whether there should be a main portal for card games and some subportals, one for each navbox, as done with Underwater diving. If you have better ideas let me know. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not particularly concerned by the time chosen, and if the maintainer comes back to request an extension that is fine as long as it is clear that the portals are in good condition, have no outstanding complaints and comply reasonably closely with the current requirements. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Precious

welcome portal maintenance

Thank you for maintaining The King Edward VI School, Morpeth and Piano Trio (Clara Schumann), among others, for uploading logos, for gnomish tasks such as listas to biographies, for creative work on portals, for welcoming new users, for missing, - trombonist, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Template editor granted

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing!  Swarm  {talk}  21:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of text on Taiwanese Australians

I didn't actually intend to remove the text, I intended to rearrange it so that it appears underneath the info box, to make the article look cleaner. I'm not sure how to do this.

I'm new to Wikipedia but I've got some experience on Wikia and other similar Wikis. Currently, I'm trying to figure out how to rearrange the article.

I have some references which I might be able to throw in as citations. Is the Australian War Memorial a trusted source? It's literally about Australian historical war records.

Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus: Hello. If you would like, you can take the Wikipedia Adventure which takes around an hour and would probably answer your question on this. In answer to the second question, the is "Australian War Memorial" the government website? If it is, then I would say it is a trusted source. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Yes, the Australian War Memorial is a physical museum in Australia which is overseen by the government. It contains lots of handy historical records, including a small section about the Japanese destroyer Yoizuki (which has a Wikipedia article). This ship was used to transport 1405 Taiwanese POWs from Sydney to Taiwan in 1946, and it was later used to evacuate some Mainlanders to Taiwan during the Chinese Civil War, having been repossessed by the ROC Navy in 1947. This article about the Yoizuki, as well as several other obscure sources (with official credentials), proves that several hundred Taiwanese were interned in Australia during WWII, disproving the current statement which says that "immigration to Australia before 1950 was negligible (and we have no records)". I believe that this article was written by a recent immigrant, especially since it has some pseudo-science about how "90% of Taiwanese people are descended from the Aborigines". Anyway, I am a teenage Taiwanese Australian whose grandmother was born in one of the Australian WWII internment camps in 1944, which is why I want to add this information to the article. I'm pretty sure that 99% of the 46,000 Taiwanese Australians have absolutely no idea that their people were interned here during WWII. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus: If you can find the sources (which you have done), then be bold and add the material. Happy editing (apologies for the late reply), Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi

I fixed your service template, but didn't pay enough attention to your edit notice, certainly feel free to revert! Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thanks. It does seem strange that the template accepted December for so long... Much appreciated, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like it Accepts it, but that makes the parser use a precise value when you don't want one. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Dreamy Jazz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Breawycker (talk to me!) 19:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@Breawycker: thanks for your message and merry Christmas to you too! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi Dreamy Jazz, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 21:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: thanks for your kind message and merry Christmas to you too! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry christmas!

Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

@Babymissfortune: thanks for your good wishes and merry Christmas to you to! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings.

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Dreamy Jazz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, DBigXrayᗙ 15:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hope the new year will bring more friendly debates and collaboration for us. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: thanks, I'm sure it will. Merry Christmas. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

@Bellezzasolo: thanks, merry Christmas to you too! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Dreamy Jazz!

Happy New Year!

Dreamy Jazz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 23:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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

@SkyGazer 512: thanks! Happy new year too. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello Dreamy Jazz: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

@Walk Like an Egyptian: thanks! Have a happy new year too. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	You are one smart guy. you have a good brain. 24escheuanimal (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@24escheuanimal: thanks! Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Florine Stettheimer

Hi - I just spent 2 HOURS adding a LOT of history to the Stettheimer page - lots about her family background, her schooling, her development BEFORE the Asbuy Park picture which is 1920 and she came back to NY and painted about 30 pictures before 1920 that are important and so I was writing about those, and there STILL is a mistake saying that she wanted her paintings destroyed which is UNTRUE in the text so I need to correct that and site an article (or two) that I've published in 2017 and 2018 citing that fact as incorrect and correcting it!!! but suddenly all that text that I spent so much time on has been eliminated and I got a note that you edited it OUT but there is nothing on your talk page so PLEASE TELL ME WHAT? WHY!!! YOU HAVE AGAIN EDITED OUT ALL MY LONG AND ACCURATE INFORMATION ON FLORINE STETTHEIMER I HAVE WORKED SO LONG ON?

Thanks! Barbara Bloemink ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarabloemink (talk • contribs) 19:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Barbarabloemink: Sorry for the late reply. I think you question has been answered on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. In answer to editing out information, I did not remove information from the article, but instead added back some corrected text (about 1/10 of your edits), but because of the formatting errors, it took me a while to clean and ensure that references were there. If you want to link me where someone said that I edited out the information, that would be appreciated, so I can know what you are talking about. I hope you are not too annoyed by all of this. We do still appreciate your contributions, but want to ensure that they are inline with Wikipedia's polices, as mentioned on the editor assistance page. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review

Hey Dreamy Jazz, thanks for the review of User:Verbistheword/organizingmeetups.

What happened to bring the page to your attention?

—Verbistheword (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Verbistheword: Just patrolling through Special:NewPagesFeed. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Roger that. —Verbistheword (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Michael Iver Peterson

I would like to reopen the request to move Michael Peterson (criminal), either to the suggested Michael Peterson (author) or simply to Michael Iver Peterson. First, any IP edits were most likely coming from listeners of various criminal justice podcasts and the like. I heard about his case via Undisclosed, and I know there is a separate podcast that is mostly dedicated to his case (though I can't recall the name).

Second, it is not reasonable to describe him as "convicted", despite the Alford plea, due to the nature of an Alford plea and the post-conviction relief process in the United States.

As the article itself notes, the blood splatter evidence against Peterson was thrown out on appeal, and there is other plausible evidence of his innocence. What remains is the prosecution's claim that Peterson's bisexuality had a negative impact on his marriage, which is not supported by their children. The Alford plea theoretically requires that there be enough evidence to convict a defendant, but in practice it merely requires that the prosecution have enough evidence that a judge will not dismiss the case before trial (as happened in this case). It amounts to an agreement to leave the case perpetually in the state it was in after the conviction was thrown out: Peterson asserts his innocence, but the claim has effectively never gone to trial. The assertion that Peterson is a "criminal" or "murderer" has been found *provable* but it has not been *proven*. Given that there is still an ongoing effort to build an alternate theory of his wife's death and there has been no finding of factual (as opposed to procedural) guilt, it seems to me that Peterson should be treated as WP:CRIME advises with regard to falsely convicted persons. It's true that he's most notable for the trial, but I can't think of a way to neutrally describe the posture of the case that would fit in a redirect note (even "accused murderer" is pretty questionable, I think). Identifying him by the murder trial essentially requires WP to take a position on whether an Alford plea constitutes proof of guilt.

Finally, I've reread the initial discussion cited by the first person to respond to the one you closed, and the failure of consensus was due to (quite reasonable) disagreement over what the new title should be, not any serious disagreement about "criminal" being an inappropriate descriptor. The person claiming otherwise in the second discussion is the only one I can find on the page behaving remotely in the manner they claim their opponents are.

Gazeboist (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, I initially put this on the wrong part of the page. Sorry about that.

Gazeboist (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gazeboist: I think after reading into this having "(criminal)" parenthetical disambiguation is touch and go here. He was indeed convicted, as you say he did plead the Alford plea. Subsequently, he is now released. I feel, currently, he did technically plea "guilty" at a point and then a court convicted him and sent him to prison, so currently I think the current name is the right one (until more discussion happens). Whether such an Alford plea makes him not a criminal in the eyes of the wiki I think may need an RfC, so you can (or if you want I can) open an RfC on this as I feel this needs larger community input, as it may be worth putting this in policy (such as Wikipedia:Article titles). I also think trying to open a requested move on this would be counterproductive until an RfC is opened, so I think it may be worth to have an RfC first to put it into policy or guideline to have a basis for the move. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: That makes sense to me (though I think WP:CRIME is probably the place to put the policy decision). I'm pretty new as an editor, and I usually just do grammar fixes, so I wasn't totally sure how to go about suggesting the change. I'd appreciate it if you could open the RfC, since again I'm not really sure how to go about it. WP:LAW should likely be pinged about the discussion as well; the Alford plea article is rather weak and expert opinion will be needed. Thanks, Gazeboist (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gazeboist: I'll open it then. by the way {{ping}} only works when you have used ~~~~ in the edit. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your help last year, and your good wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: thanks for this and your previous message. Happy new year too! Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Please check out Happy once more, for the missed smile ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Hello, your recent BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dreamy Jazz Bot) has been approved, please see the request for notes. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

How is this going?    — The Transhumanist   08:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The Transhumanist, this is the BRFA for redlinked portals (Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/Wanted portals). The BRFA for the linking of root articles and categories is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dreamy Jazz Bot 2. I have not currently written code to link navigation boxes to portals as it was proving difficult to implement reliably, however, in the future I might code this in. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(486958) 2014 MU69

Would you care to elaborate on your close at talk:(486958) 2014 MU69. You said both sides had strong arguments, but the opposition side was based on a false reading of WP:NCASTRO, which states “Common names should be used for article names in preference to official, IAU-sanctioned names where the former are widely used and are unambiguous.” There was no argument that Ultima Thule is the common name, so therefore it should have been moved. I realize there was much opposition, but we don’t use vote totals to determine consensus. Calidum 15:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Calidum, as I put in the closing statement, I took precedent into consideration. There was another article, where the common name was not taken into account, even though the media used it, however, once the official name was published the original name was then forgotten. I understand that, yes the proposed name is the common name, but whether this will be the official name is a different matter. The wiki is not a crystal ball, so we cannot say that the proposed name was going to be official and so in relation to precedent, moving would not follow this. I considered the prescedent mentioned in the comments section an argument against moving.

Also, I understand that vote totals don't mean consensus. I would say that for my consideration, I evaulated that both sides only had one core argument. Common name for moving and precedent for the arguments against. Because of what I consider strong arguments both ways and other factors, including split opinions on the name to move to, the discussion was only ever going to end up with a result of no consensus. If you need further clarification or want to ask further questions, feel free. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

As to precedent, I’m sure you’re aware that consensus can change and what happened 10 or more years ago has no bearing on new discussions. Calidum 16:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Calidum. Thanks for alerting me to this, I had not realised that the article was that old (silly me for not properly checking). I do still feel that, even ignoring this precedent, I would have closed this as no consensus. I think that for two editors to use this to oppose a move, they had to agree with it and also think that the consensus there was still relevant, but I do think that this consensus might be too old. I still, however, stand with my closure, as the discussion was only heading to a no consensus close. I do respect your opinion and think it is valid. Thanks and happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

This will be my last question, but did you consider the point about WP:Recognizability that several supporters raised? Even some opposed admitted Ultima Thule is more recognizable (E.g. "the public and media tend to use Ultima Thule as it's more memorable than the official designation of 2014 MU69" and "Ultima Thule is more RECOGNIZABLE in the context of the current news cycles..."). Calidum 22:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Calidum, of course "Ultima Thule" is more recognisable and I did notice this, but the precedent did not take into the account that the name was not very recognisable. In conjunction, the policy states These should be seen as goals, not as rules, so we shouldn't rely on these pointers always. I felt that the precedent wasn't overridden by this point. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Move review for (486958) 2014 MU69

An editor has asked for a Move review of (486958) 2014 MU69. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Calidum 23:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Calidum, thanks for letting me know. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Olga Ernst

Thanks for reviewing my User Page (Photographs) Dreamy Jazz :-) --Olga Ernst (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Olga Ernst your welcome. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portal/List of all portals

Hi, are you ok if I remove redlinks on these pages?

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Portal/List of all portals/Page 1
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Portal/List of all portals/Page 2
3. Wikipedia:WikiProject Portal/List of all portals/Page 3
4. Wikipedia:WikiProject Portal/List of all portals/Page 4
5. Wikipedia:WikiProject Portal/List of all portals/Page 5
6. Wikipedia:WikiProject Portal/List of all portals/Page 6

⊂Emoteplump (Contributions) (Talk) 07:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Emoteplump, these pages were designed to be a snapshot of the portal namespace. Some pages have been deleted, but also many pages have been created since the snapshot was taken. I can regenerate the pages for you (after moving the old pages to a subpage). I will probably be able to get round to it.today. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Emoteplump, the lists have been updated. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Current events noticeboard

Hello Dreamy Jazz:

I've seen you around, but I do not think we have ever interacted formally before. All I know is that your decently active.

One, your name is misspelled at Wikipedia:Feedback request service#Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Two, please participate in my RfC. I feel like the person who threw a birthday party, but really no one showed up. I was hoping it would be a bit more lively there. I'm not trying to WP:CANVASS, and this notification is solely due to your listing at Wikipedia:Feedback request service#Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Many Thanks and Kindest Regards, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

MattLongCT, RfCs take a while. The one I opened on the behalf of another person was opened a while ago is and was very slow in progress. Because it is nearly been open for just 24 hours, many editors won't have been notified by the bot and/or have not been online yet. Give it time. I'll have a look now. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Link placing bot

Dear Dreamy Jazz,

How goes the portal link placing bot?

Once the bot has placed the links, the entire set of new portals will essentially be online. All the work we've done over the past several months will be live.

This will be the biggest event pertaining to portals since the RfC. Huge.

In addition to serving the reader population of Wikipedia, this will drive a lot of traffic to the portal project, in the form of questions, comments, requests, and new participants. In a self-reinforcing cycle. It will make the next phase of portal component design and development that much easier.

The set of new portals will also pose as examples to editors, who will likely create new portals in droves. Those who like what they see, will want to build portals for their favorite subjects. We can only guess at how much growth this will inspire.

A lot is resting on this. It's giving me goosebumps.

What is the bot currently capable of?

Thank you for taking on this project.

I very much look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   11:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The Transhumanist, the bot is currently in the trail period and performing edits now. It can currently link root articles and root categories. It cannot link navboxes as they have too much variation in the way they are built, but several templates auto link the portal. It adds and removes the category Category:Portals needing placement of incoming links when it goes over a portal if links are needed. See Special:Contributions/Dreamy_Jazz_Bot for the latest edits. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. That is a giant step in the right direction. Kudos to you.

Concerning the navigation footers, there are some identifying features the bot could work off of...

The first is the "navbox" template name. If the navigation footer wasn't created with the navbox template, the bot should skip it.

The second is the line | below = . The portal link would go under that.

Does this help?    — The Transhumanist   12:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The Transhumanist, I'll see how it goes. The current BRFA is only for linking root articles and categories. There will be variation in the adding of links to navboxes, so it may be too late currently to get code ready for this BRFA and I don't think I can just change a major part of the BRFA, especially when the bot is now in trial. I think it may be best to wait for this BRFA to go through and then open a new one for navboxes once it's code is written. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The Transhumanist. The bot's trial is complete. Seems to have worked fine except from a few problems, which are now fixed. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Far out. By the way, I've just published an issue of the Portals Update (just have the link subscribers to go), and so this additional good news will be in the next issue.    — The Transhumanist   13:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The Transhumanist, the bot should be approved in a few days as long as nothing comes up. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

   — The Transhumanist   23:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The Transhumanist, the bot's been approved and is now running. The bot checks new portals every day and every month all portals. It is currently running on all portals (as I speak). First edit non-testing edit was to Portal:Abidjan, when it removed the needing links category. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Emoteplump is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user

Once discovered, admins nuke everything a sockpuppet has contributed.

In wake of the mass deletions that followed, this has left a huge mess. See:

Special:Log/create/Emoteplump.    — The Transhumanist   21:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for User:Dreamy Jazz Bot

Hi, I would like to make a suggestion for a new bot task for Dreamy Jazz Bot. It is to automatically request csd (db-g6 /Housekeeping) for subpages of portals that are revamped. Those pages are no longer needed when the main portal is self-sustaining. ⊂Emoteplump (Contributions) (Talk) 14:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC) striked by dreamy Jazz due to concerns from TTH

Emoteplump Hello and thanks for the suggestion. First I'd like to thank you for your enthusiasm in the portals WikiProject! I understand that this bot would be a good idea, but unfortunately I don't think such a bot would work. This is because:

• The portal subpages may still be useful in the future, but this may not always be the case. Such a decision on whether they will be useful needs to be evaluated and decided with "context" about the portal and the content on the page. This would be difficult to implement as some pages may be small in size but be useful and other larger pages may be completely useless once the automated design came around.

• Good assessment. We are on the same wavelength.    — The Transhumanist   22:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Currently I mark for deletion subpages when they are orphaned. I use AWB (a semi automatic editor) and an SQL query on quarry to get a list and mark these pages for deletion. If the wikiproject has decided that subpages on revamped portals are not useful, then a bot for such an action would be possible. Until then we will have to do with what we have. :If you have subpages which you think would be up for deletion, you could post it on The tasks page for the wikiproject as a new section. An admin can then come to delete the pages.

Thanks for the idea anyway! Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe you could introduce a new task for Dreamy Jazz Bot, which is to create portal talk pages. The bot can pull the wikiprojects that the parent page is in & include it into the portal talk page.

Eg (Portal:Adidas):

Adidas is part of these wikiprojects (WikiProject Companies, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Fashion, WikiProject Swimming, WikiProject Brands). So the bot can create the talk page of Portal:Adidas & include the wikiprojects mentioned on Talk:Adidas along with WikiProject Portals at the top & ending with Template:Portal talk. By default, the bot will tag the class of the page as portal (class=portal). It will then look like this:

Hope this suggestion will be useful. ⊂Emoteplump (Contributions) (Talk) 11:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Emoteplump, that is a very good idea! Once I have the root article and root category bot fully working (It has been approved) I will start on this. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Creating missing talk pages is definitely a good bot task (but, for root pages only, not subpages).    — The Transhumanist   22:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The Transhumanist, I was thinking only root pages. I'll start on this soon. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Coolness.    — The Transhumanist   08:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The Transhumanist, BRFA opened as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dreamy Jazz Bot 3. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Please nix the subpage csd automation request

We should not automatically nuke portal subpages, not even orphaned ones.

There is much valuable data in those that can be used in the restarts, such as the filenames and captions of pictures that may not be easy to find anywhere else. Some picture collections were put together by hand. Also, sometimes a portal is restarted by mistake, such as Portal:H. P. Lovecraft. So, it is best to wait awhile after a restart before subpages are requested for deletion.    — The Transhumanist   21:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The Transhumanist, I have discounted the idea of deleting portal subpages by bot. It wouldn't be approved as it would be a WP:CONTEXTBOT, as it needs to know whether to mark a page for deletion. Also, you (or others) can request the subpages are undeleted if they are via WP:REFUND or through an admin. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 07:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Coolness.    — The Transhumanist   08:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Task 2 problem

Hi, minor problem with BOT task 2 in this edit. The heading should be "See also" with the lower case second word. Keith D (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Keith D, thanks for noticing and reporting. This should be a quick fix, I'll fix it now. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The fix has been pushed to the script on tools now. Couldn't SSH into the server before due to being on a public network. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the fix. Keith D (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Excerpt

Thanks for the enhancements to Module:Excerpt. I think you're right to retain the math tag; some sentences don't make much sense when equations are removed. I've already attempted to deal with the problematic pattern <math>\foo{\bar{x}}</math>, in which }} resembles the end of a template. I see that a template {{Excerpt}} has appeared and the module is now being used more widely on English and Spanish Wikipedia. Discussion here. Certes (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Certes: Hello, I wanted to remove the math from being transclueded as it seemed to cause slideshow spew bugs. After making the edit, I realised that this was not the cause of the problem, so I reverted the edit. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Task 2

I noticed that Portal:Bihar was tagged as needing incoming links. It has however a link from the root article Bihar and a link from Category:Bihar (root category?). Am I misunderstanding how this bot functions or is it acting up? Cheers, Cesdeva ^(talk) 21:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Cesdeva, hello. It also needs a link from its navigational template per WP:Portal guidelines#Linking to portals. The bot detects, but does not link (currently) unlinked navigational templates used by the portal. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply. It may be worth adding this to the Task 2 description on the Bot's user page. I now see it's in the BRFA but that took me a little digging to findc On another note, I like your bot. Cheers, Cesdeva ^(talk) 22:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Cesdeva, I'll do that now. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Did I satisfy Task 2 by adding the 11 portals I restarted (and 1 I started) to the Portals contents page? I think I counted right in my contributions. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ancheta Wis, hello. Task 2 does not check for links from the contents page, so the Task 2 process won't have noticed these links. Editors who create a portal should add it to the contents page when the portal is complete. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 07:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Portal:South Pole

I noticed that Dreamy Jazz bot created Portal:South Pole. But, it's incomplete. One thing I'm most interested in, is having a bot automatically find subjects to create portals on. How did Dreamy Jazz bot select "South Pole?"    — The Transhumanist   23:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Also noticed these, created by the bot:

• 14:24, 3 February 2019 diff hist +2,532‎ N Portal:British Airways ‎ create
• 14:23, 3 February 2019 diff hist +2,532‎ N Portal:Japan Airlines ‎ create current
• 14:23, 3 February 2019 diff hist +2,532‎ N Portal:Extraterrestrial life ‎ create
• 14:23, 3 February 2019 diff hist +2,532‎ N Portal:Derry ‎ create
• 14:23, 3 February 2019 diff hist +2,532‎ N Portal:Penang ‎ create current
• 14:23, 3 February 2019 diff hist +2,532‎ N Portal:Perak ‎ create current
• 14:22, 3 February 2019 diff hist +2,532‎ N Portal:Selangor ‎ create current
• 14:21, 3 February 2019 diff hist +2,532‎ N Portal:Perlis ‎ create current
• 14:21, 3 February 2019 diff hist +2,532‎ N Portal:Terengganu ‎ create current

Nice.

Is that a bot task? Or were you using the account manually?

The only reason I'm asking, is because I'd be very interested in the algorithm used for choosing the subjects.    — The Transhumanist   23:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The Transhumanist, oh that was me creating portals manually after I'd forgotten to log out of my bot account. I must have forgotten to check Portal:South Pole properly. These portals were from the Emoteplump deletion list. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 07:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Got it) And thank you for speedying the South Pole portal. When I have time I'll do some digging for topics on it. Not sure there are enough, though.    — The Transhumanist   23:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Transclusion expansion time report

How can I generate a "Transclusion expansion time report" like you did here? (look for the "Extended content" hat and extend it.) I'm trying to work out why Portal:Egypt overruns. (If only we could fix each portal in the 60 seconds it takes to create a broken one...) Certes (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Certes: Sorry for the late reply. It is in a HTML comment in the source of the webpage. It is be found in the comment which starts with "Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)" (so you could just find in page on the source for "Transclusion expansion time report"). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Paul Hamlyn Foundation

Thanks for all your help and advice setting up the PHF page, we really appreciate it! All the best. SwoodwardPHF (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

SwoodwardPHF, you are welcome. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 07:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Отказ

ПривеТ

Владимир1997 (talk)

Hello. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

How does the bot handle plural titles?

Like Portal:Loons, where the root article is singular, like Loon?    — The Transhumanist   23:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The Transhumanist, it reads wikitext of the portal so what ever is in the portal as the lead excerpt should be shown. I'll look into the cases you have above. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This is exciting: Dreamy Jazz Bot is plowing the field!

Re: User:Dreamy Jazz Bot/Task 2

I've been watching Dreamy Jazz Bot's operations with great interest.

Congratulations. This bot is fantastic!

I am fascinated by it, and am confused about one thing...

The Task 2 page says it checks all the portals every month. Has it done one of its monthly checks yet?

I noticed that Dreamy Jazz Bot has linked to about 400 out of the 4700 single-page portals, including some of the newest ones.

Since that is less than 10 per cent, it makes me wonder if the bot has done a monthly pass yet.

Here are some questions, from a complete bot newb (me)...

During a monthly pass, how does Dreamy Jazz Bot find the portals that need links placed to them?

Then what does it do?

Does it skip any?

Does it report the ones it skips?

Can it track the portals missing each type of link?

Keep up the great work. Dreamy Jazz Bot is definitely an essential part of the project.

I can hardly believe the portals project has its very own bot.

All my fingers are tingling!

(And no, I don't have diabetes).

   — The Transhumanist   20:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: I especially like the bot's daily processing of new portals, so newly created portals get deorphanized soon after they are created. This means we are not adding to the orphan problem by creating more portals. You have certainly gone beyond the call of duty by producing this feature. Thank you. --TT

@The Transhumanist:, hello. I'll answer to both posts here. In regards to below, I was planning to output to a page links needed. Currently this is approved (as per the 2nd BRFA), so I could (once it is working) get this as a subpage of the project. It will check all portals listed in Category:Portals needing placement of incoming links, listing the links needed. So existing portals (older than a day) which then have the links removed / a template or category added to the page, won't be marked as needing links until the next all portals (monthly) run runs.

In regards to above:

• Every month the bot gets every portal listed in Category:All portals and then uses a series of regex splits to extract:

1. the root article (which for now is defined as the first {{Transclude lead excerpt}} on the page, but this could and may change).
2. all the categories contained in <categorytree> or {{#tag:categorytree}} or [[:Category:]]
3. all the templates in excerpt slideshow templates and {{Plain navboxes}}

• It will automatically link the root article and categories found
• If the pages to be edited (the portal, root article and categories) contain {{bots|deny=portallinker}} or {{bots|deny=Dreamy Jazz Bot}}, the bot won't edit the page.
• Not currently, but skipping the page for editing won't stop it being listed on the needing links page (root article and categories). If the bot cannot edit the portal, it won't report this (the only problem would be not adding the needing links category). I would prefer to fix problems than just stop the bot from editing a page, so this is a temporary last resort fix.
• Hopefully it will on the subpage as approved (but not currently running)

I will get onto dealing with the suggestion below. It shouldn't take too long. I intend that the task will run every 2 days, on the same day that the redlinks task runs. I have not seen any problems with not finding the places to add links with the bot, so will look into the lack of edits (which I was suspicious about, but couldn't find any problems with not linking in the diffs). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Also I have manually initiated the all portals check. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The bot appears to be removing the need links category even though there is no portal link on the article (it seems to be spotting the link on the nav template on the article). See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Abbott_and_Costello&diff=prev&oldid=883527353 . There is no portal link in the See also section of that article.    — The Transhumanist   00:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The Transhumanist, Ah. Should have seen that coming, but there we go. I'll look into this tomorrow. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it. The article has an inline link. Please disregard.    — The Transhumanist   00:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The Transhumanist, regardless, the way I detect whether a page needs a link is by using "What links here". On articles this would be a problem if the navbox already has the link, as the article would already link to the portal. I will implement a bit of a code to add the {{portal-inline}} template if a direct wikilink is not in the text and such a template is not already used. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you are on the case.    — The Transhumanist   00:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Bot feature request

We need to track portals based on all 3 types of links:

• Corresponding root article
• Corresponding category
• Corresponding nav footer

Right now, we can find portals that don't have all 3, but it is not easy finding the portals that don't have a particular type of the 3.

The most important link of the 3 is the one on the root article page.

So, a question a portal editor may need answered is "Which portals do not have a link on the corresponding root article?

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   20:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The Transhumanist, I have posted this on your talk page, but for convenience the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/Portals needing links achieves this. If you want I can also add a seperate category, but I won't do this unless you want it. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, sections. Nice. That's fine. Didn't realize there were sections in there. Nicely done.    — The Transhumanist   23:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

How's the linking to the portals going?

Is the bot catching them all?

How did your manual restart go?    — The Transhumanist   23:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The Transhumanist, hello. The manual all portals run didn't add any new links, except from newly created portals. I have not had the reliable internet connection as I have been on holiday, so I have not looked into this much. I haven't found anything suspicious yet. I'll be able to dedicate more time to searching for issues soon. I suspect one of the reasons why the bot has not linked a huge number of pages, is because editors had responded to the backlog and used AWB and manual editing to tackle the problem before the bot was approved. If you have examples, they would be incredibly helpful, as it would be clear pretty much immediately what the cause is. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll look around, and will post at ya again soon.    — The Transhumanist   23:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I arbitrarily picked a starting point (Liverpool):

• Portal:Living Dead - indev code managed to link this page
• Portal:Ljubljana - indev code managed to link this page
• Portal:Tove Lo - indev code managed to link this page
• Portal:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - indev code managed to link this page
• Portal:Kenny Loggins - indev code managed to link this page
• Portal:Loire Valley - indev code managed to link this page
• Portal:Long Island Rail Road - indev code managed to link this page
• Portal:Longevity - indev code managed to link this page
• Portal:Loons - in development code managed to link this page
• Portal:Lope de Vega
• Portal:Lord Byron - I think this is due to the link already being in the navbox
• Portal:Los Angeles Angels
• Portal:Los Angeles Chargers
• Portal:Los Angeles Clippers
• Portal:Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

That's more than half of the ones I checked. I don't see any evidence of a recent massive AWB drive to link these things.

My guess is that 80% to 90% of portals do not have a link on the corresponding root article.

Let me know what you discover about why they are getting skipped by the bot.

Thank you. You are doing a great job. Keep at it, and we'll be all hooked up in no time.    — The Transhumanist   23:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC) (comments by dj)

I'm looking into it. I'm running a manual all portal run with the updated code. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: It seems that Toolforge does not like my script and was skipping portals?! I am running my updated code on my computer which seems to be catching all portals. Hopefully I this will ensure all pages have the links needed. I have not developed code yet to detect when the link from the article is from a navigational box, so some root articles won't have {{Portal-inline}} added, but these articles still have a link from somewhere on the page (most likely a template navigational box) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Also the bot is now adding links and doing things at a increased rate with more edits being performed. I am still in C on the manual run (errors overnight) and already around 500 edits have happened. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist:. Bot has made over 1000 edits related to Task 2 in the last 24 hours and the bot has only just completed portals starting with "D". Reason it it is slow is that the bot makes a touch edit for navigational templates detected to ensure what links here works and also makes around 3 edits per portal. Each save has to wait on average 9s (depending on the wiki's database lag) before it can be made, so every portal takes around 30 seconds (with the bot's script processing time) on average to check. This can grow to as much as 30 seconds per edit of waiting when database lag gets longer (at heightened usage times), so around 1 min 35 seconds per portal. However, a all portal run does not need to be done often as the bot will check new portals every day. Also automatic all portal runs will probably be done in batches, as I am pretty sure this was why the script had issues running on Toolforge. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Well done. Keep me posted on further progress. And...

...keep up the great work!    — The Transhumanist   23:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Excessive portal links

I've just reverted this sequence of edits by the bot as it appears to be unhelpful to create a list of portals on a category page that (1) is already (by definition) a list of portals and (2) where the list could grow very big. Can the bot be changed to avoid adding portal links in cases like this? DexDor ^(talk) 07:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

DexDor, perhaps. I could detect when the word "portals" is on its own in the category name. If it is, then the bot won't link it and it will be added to a page to check that the non-addition was appropriate. This would catch this case and hopefully all others, as s category of many portals would be called something like "(name) portals". Categories for one portal (i.e. "(name) portal" would still be linked, as they are often a list of the subpages of the portal.

I'm not sure if there is any other way to deal with this, so I'll add this in now. If you have any suggestions, feel free to let me know. Thanks for finding and reporting it, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm still seeing inappropriate/excessive linking to portals. For example, I've just reverted the addition of a link from Category:Habitats to Portal:Forestry and edits like this and this are very dubious. If this continues some pages could potentially have links to dozens of portals. DexDor ^(talk) 06:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

DexDor, this is due to the category being shown on the portal as a subcategory and per WP:Portal guidelines#Linking to portals what ever categories are shown in the categories section should have a link added. The way the bot scans for categories is by looking for {{#tag:categorytree}}, <categorytree> and [[:Category:. When the bot places a link on a potentially less related category, this is because it is placed directly on the portal. For Portal:Forestry, the categories are shown as Additional categories in the subcategories box and for Portal:Graffiti the category is shown in the categories section of the page.

In any case all links to a portal added to categories or articles which don't include the portal title in it's title are flagged as suspicious and at the end of the run outputted to User:Dreamy Jazz Bot/Links added to portals which need checking, where I or others can see links which were added which may be wrong due to a mis-configuration on a portal. The addition of links can then be reverted if they are inappropriate, but the link to the category must then also be removed on the portal, so that it is not added again. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 07:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

DJB introducing syntax errors, and is overemphasising portals

This syntax-breaking and mis-placed insert of the portal link needs to get fixed before the bot makes any more edits.

In addition, it is way way undue (in the WP:UNDUE sense) to create an entire "See also" section in the article to link to the portal (especially an unmaintained portal that the portal enthusiasts slapped together, rather than someone with actual interest and expertise in the topic). That would be the case for any article, but even more so for one that already includes a {{subject bar}} or {{portal bar}}. Portal links need to either go in a subject bar if it is present, or it needs to go with the sister links and such in the last section of the article.

PS. Since I saw DJB's RFBA referenced guidelines from the Portals WikiProject: when operating a bot, be very much aware that relying too blindly on the guidelines at the Portals wikiproject can lead you out on pretty thin ice. Portals is a WikiProject like any other, and a local consensus there has no authority outside that particular WikiProject. In particular, while the Portals project may want their portal links in the "See also" section, the project-wide MOS:LAYOUT places them in the bottom matter among the navboxes and categories. Bots (including WP:MEATBOT editing) need to be much more carefull about such issues than mere enthusiastic human editors (which can make the same sorts of mistakes, but at a much much smaller scale). --Xover (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Xover, hello. I will implement the addition of the portal link to the {{subject bar}} if it is there. However, I disagree with some of the other statements you present. MOS:SEEALSO says that {{Portal}} and {{Wikipedia books}} links are usually placed in this section.. Therefore, I disagree with your statement in the 2nd paragraph on the location of the portal link. I also disagree that it should go with the sister links, as by very definition it is not a sister link and the information provided from MOS:SEEALSO. The bot already places the links into a {{portal bar}} if it is present on the page. I also don't understand how that edit was a "syntax-breaking" edit. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Xover I've implemented code to deal with {{subject bar}}. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be right regarding placement of individual portals: the overview on MOS:LAYOUT is talking about {{portal bar}}, while the more specific guidance at MOS:SEEALSO suggests placing individual portals in "See also". However, it also says that "See also" sections are entirely optional, and that the inclusion of such a section is a content issue: automatically creating such a section in order to place only a portal link there (vs. adding one to an existing section) is way undue (and yet more so on a FA). You might also want to keep in mind that the guidance at MOS:SEEALSO stems from a time when the presumption was that a portal was an actively maintained and curated thing. That does no longer apply with the current crop of mostly auto-generated portals: they are effectively souped up navboxes. (I'm speaking of Portal:Hamlet and similar; I'm sure there are examples that are actively maintained and curated too).

Your quick-fix for {{subject bar}} is good (thanks!), but you may want to be smarter about placing the parameter: those who care about that stuff will be irked by just shoving it in at the top rather than in the right order and with correct whitespace. While the template syntax doesn't care about that stuff, those who maintain it do.

However, my main complaint was that the initial edit is literally inserting invalid syntax, and I'm a bit concerned that you do not see that from the diff. Anyone can make mistakes, and all code has bugs, but if you want to make mass automated edits you really should be able to spot and fix obvious problems.

In any case, there are two issues with the diff above. The first is that it breaks the heading syntax: ===See also== … ==Notes===. The second is that you're attempting context-sensitive changes: you blindly tried to insert a top level "See also" section within an existing top level "Notes and references" section that contains subsections for various categories of notes. Even if you hadn't messed up the heading syntax the result would still be nonsensical. Given what I'm seeing here, DJB should not be trying to insert new sections at all, irrespective of the concern above, because it is simply not smart enough to do so correctly. Adding the portal to a suitable existing section does not have this problem. --Xover (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Xover, I had not noticed that syntax error. I'll look into this. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Xover, I have updated the bot so that it will only add a see also section if the sections which it would be placed above are level two headings. I have also added code to try to make the added parameter to a {{Subject bar}} to be like the other parameters. It can't be perfect, but it would make it look almost completely similar. If the small difference bothers them enough, they can change it. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Xover, I have disabled the addition of a see also section. The code trying to address these issues is broken and I can't find a way to deal with it. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Right, that's the essence of WP:CONTEXTBOT: it's hard for software to deal with such issues because it requires too much understanding of the context. You can get it consistently right in the default case, but the exceptions quickly multiply to become unmanageable. In any case, only adding to an existing "See also" section should be much safer, and, in my opinion, also more appropriate. Thanks for updating the {{Subject bar}} code; on behalf of all us semi-obsessives trying to maintain that stuff, that's very much appreciated! :) --Xover (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

And just to be clear, by maintaining order and whitespace for the template param I mean like this. For maintaining large chunks of template soup it actually matters (much like whitespace and indentation matters for code maintainability when programming). --Xover (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz Bot edit

Hello Dreamy Jazz, have a look at this edit. Your bot hasn't considered the heading hierarchy. Regards --GünniX (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

GünniX, thanks for letting me know. This has been dealt with above. The bot won't add any see also sections as there are too many issues with it, so this shouldn't happen in future edits. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

It is with great regret that I grant your request to revoke your template editor permissions, and to accept your (semi)retirement. You are an editor I have held in the highest esteem, and I am sorry to see you go. I sincerely hope that your departure is only due to positive developments in real life. I hope you know that you will always be welcome to return to the project, and if you desire, you will have your permissions returned to you. Until then, please accept this barnstar in recognition of your substantial contributions to the project. I hope that you will return someday. But, even if you can't, you should rest assured that you have provided a most substantial and impactful contribution to a worthwhile project to expand upon a compendium of all human knowledge, and that your role in doing so has been very much appreciated. Best regards, and again, thank you. ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello and thanks for all your contributions, both to the portal project and elsewhere around Wikipedia. Tools we've produced are being used in ways we didn't anticipate, which sometimes alarms me and perhaps you. That's not our fault. The ballpoint pen has been used to sign thousands of dud cheques but was still a great invention. It looks as if the community is approaching a consensus which might give the portal namespace a more positive reception.

I've moved on (or perhaps back) to improving other areas of Wikipedia. I hope that, in time, you too may find another niche where your valuable services will be more welcomed. Certes (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to say thanks as well for all the ways you've helped the Portals WikiProject. Rest assured your contributions do not go unappreciated. See you around. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 20:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Getting to GA

I've been admiring the work you have been doing to get Morpeth, Northumberland up to GA. So if you don't mind me being "well cheeky", and happen to be feeling generous with your time, I wonder if you would mind giving me the benefit of your experience and look over Milton Keynes please? Ideally I would like it to reach GA standard but I'm coming from a Class C rating so even an A would be good. I'm really struggling to come up with a lead section that is more than the some of its parts and thrown many attempts in the electronic dustbin. Feel free to ignore this request if it is just not going to be manageable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Morpeth "the" ...

Sorry I am sounding obsessive about it, and thanks for being nice! Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: An old copy of the lead was edited by SkyGazer which was based on a copy before you improved it. I hadn't noticed it, but thanks for correcting it. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks - I feel slightly less guilty now! Cheers DBaK (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-retirement

I'm sad to hear that you're semi-retiring. Your contributions to this project were extremely useful and much appreciated, including those to the portal namespace and various other areas. Of course, I completely understand that real-life stuff happens, and that people simply don't have the time to edit. But still, I hope you come back at some point. Best, --SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 15:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

SkyGazer 512, thanks. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Morpeth, Northumberland

The article Morpeth, Northumberland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Morpeth, Northumberland for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SkyGazer 512 -- SkyGazer 512 (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to see you discouraged

I'm sorry you got sucked into portals. I've seen you make a real difference at AfC amd in content creation. Hope to see you back soon. Legacypac (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Unlinking deleted portals

My apologies if this is difficult for you, but you are reported to have created a bot to de-orphanize portals. Perhaps you would be interested in creating a bot to orphanize deleted portals. I _think_ I've taken care of the mathematics portals deleted at MfD, but I'm not certain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: My bot is retired. Best idea is to go and get consensus (if you have not already). Also the links added by the bot are not shown if the portal does not exist, so I would question the need for it. If you find consensus, then my best bet is to go to WP:BOTREQ. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 07:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Bot

Per your request, your bot has been deflagged. Should you return and want to resume bot operations, please request at WP:BRFA. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi, Dreamy Jazz, with nothing but regret I have implemented your self-requested block for you and your bot. Will have a crat revoke the bot flag as well. Very sorry to see you go, and I hope you'll be back in the near future. For the record, I was looking forward to supporting your RfA, and I still hope to do so someday. Hope all is well IRL, which is what's most important. Thanks again for everything you've done around here, and best regards. ~Swarm~ {talk} 20:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: thanks. I have just become busier IRL and I need a break from the wiki. I'm not sure how long it will be, but thanks for your help. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand. Note that I have email enabled, so if you ever need to email somebody for an unblock, I'll be happy to do so. Of course, you can just use the {{unblock}} template as well. Thank you also for the barnstar also btw, I have added it proudly to my awards page. Take care! ~Swarm~ {talk} 06:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Message to Legacypac

@Legacypac: Hello. The portals created by bot ("portal" pages and not "portal talk" pages) was me forgetting to log out my bot account after testing the bot and so were created my myself using the semi-automated templates. Sorry for the confusion this has caused. Please mark the portals you have nominated which I created for G7 and use this as my approval to do so. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Also including you as you expressed concern on this matter. If you want to mark the portals I created up for MfD currently for G7, with this as the authorisation, feel free too. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Also, if you want to delete any more portals I created, you can post a notice(s) on my talk page with the portal(s) in question and I will then (when I notice) give consent for G7 deletion. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Does that count for Portal redirects as well? I think there are some of those too. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No it doesn't necessarily. Redirects are harmless (as long as they meet the redirect criteria) and are all being discussed currently anyway. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok thank-you. I hope you return to editing soon. You were a valuable part of AfC. Legacypac (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)