The Original Filfi

Three Kingdoms in progresss

Task completed

Old characters count = 370 new count = 234.

Should I proceed?

I think it's rather difficult to classify the "role" of many people, there are many overlaps as was usual for the time. And the notes column can probably do without the sorting to cut loading time. _dk (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Law Clerks in progress

Redacted and re-submitted, redacted 2, moved to Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States

Eels in progress

Task completed I have kept all functionality, removed dead link, added all player as per eeal.au, reduced overall size by over 2/3rds (prior to adding 2013 and missed players) this should improve loading time significantly, I have saved all my work and can adjust with relative ease anything as required, so please advise, comment or offer suggestions etc
The Original Filfi (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Golden Bay-Motukea Rugby Union

Task completed, good work bots

Hello The Original Filfi. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Golden Bay-Motukea Rugby union, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Does not redirect to a different or incorrect namespace. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, thanks for the reply, I must have misinterpreted what "namespace" means, to clarify the name is spelt wrong and the RD was set up to RD to the correct name, as per my blurb on the RD page this page is now effective an oprhan and of no further use, should I now tag this for normal deletion or will it be picked up by a bot?
Thanks again
The Original Filfi (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I amended the link above to kill the link, I assume it will now get picked up in the next bot sweep, we will see
The Original Filfi (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Assistance and to clarify.

Hi Admin or Editor Guru's, possibly a tricky one to brighten or ruin your day, I hope it is the former, I am contributing to some listing articles which are sourced directly from the authority, in this particular case, UK Legislation, some spelling and grammar errors exist on the actual legislation and these have been passed into law with the errors intact, so my question is twofold;
1. Should I replicate with errors intact, and if so.
2. How can I stop a bot, such as AWB correcting these.
Although technically correct to do so on 99% of the articles on our wiki, in this case I think we need to be exact.
Kind regards
The Original Filfi (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Yes, you should replicate with errors intact, see WP:MOSQUOTE. You could put [''[[sic]]''], giving [sic], beside the error to explain it to human editors.

2. Tagging the page with {{nobots}} should prevent AWB and other bots from "correcting" it, see Template:Bots#Implementation.

This comes under "brighten" rather than "ruin", as I was able to provide an answer, and it makes a change from deleting spam! JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't put [''[[sic]]''] directly, use {{sic}} instead which allows for more specifically indicating the reproduced error in the wikitext. If done right, that should also avoid correction by AWB meaning you don't have to abuse {{nobots}} like that.

Also, note that bots to fix spelling or grammer are explicitly not permitted, so any such correction is either an unauthorized bot that should be blocked (WP:BON would be a good place to bring up such bots) or a human editor who should be communicated with. Anomie⚔ 12:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 2010

Hi, what was wrong with the two List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 2010 edits you reverted? Thanks for explanation. By the way, since you edit more of these List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom articles, could you comment on what is their purpose? List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 2010 does not provide us with more information than its source (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010) As I see it, added value would be only in wikilinks, but all these articles are underlinked. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi WikiH, I reverted one edit that linked a place name, and I reverted one edit that fixed some "spelling errors" see below, I also reverted my own edit as it made the article far too long, there is some discussion going on at the moment on Talk:List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 2011 to try to get to a consistent approach agreed going forward as there are a few that fit in the "too long" category. The purpose of the articles are to list the laws passed under Secondary legislation in the UK, each law stands alone and any spelling errors or missed punctuation, ie Kings Lynn not King's Lynn, is as the laws were passed and not a typo by one of the previous editor of this article and should be replicated intact. Linking place names in this context also seems somewhat superfluous. Hope this help and clarifies, please feel free to join the talk at 2011
Kind regards
The Original Filfi (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 2011

Hello - you reverted my spelling correction to the title of SI 2011/45 (Juction to Junction). It looks to me as if the title in the SI as issued is spelt correctly and the spelling mistake is in the link on the legislation.gov.uk website. As no entries in the list are externally linked I think it is better that the correct as issued spelling be used but I am not going to fuss about a list which I will probably never visit again - up to you. Regards.Orenburg1 (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Orenburg1, sorry I was going to drop a note here on your talk page as well as on the edit, got carried away on another (self-imposed) task. The logic for the revert is any spelling and punctuation errors (of which there are many) are reproduced as per as the SI's were passed into law, errors therefore have been replicated intact. The spelling on that piece of legislation is indeed incorrect, the first mention of "Junction" is spelt correctly the second was not
Kind regards
The Original Filfi (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello again - I guess my point was that the misspelling is in the legislation.gov.uk website catalogue entry. Under that entry there is a pdf of the actual statutory instrument which is what was actually enacted, and the spelling in the actual SI is correct. Whatever.

Regards.Orenburg1 (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orenburg1, total agree, that is another spanner in the works, going forward checking each pdf vs the catalogue entry is far to time consuming, I may run a couple of tests on some of the other obvious errors and see if the same applies, if so, I will seek advice, again, and look at running a spelling correcting tool and reload. Top work and diligence.
Thank you and kind regards
The Original Filfi (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, FYI, test failed many "errors" are also carried through to the pdf enacted, I will still seek advice in light of the above.Thanks again.The Original Filfi (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree there are too many false positives in the list to easily check manually. I can only suggest that you add a note at the top of the edit page telling people to take care when fixing apparent typos on the page. Best regards. Orenburg1 (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Monastic pogging experiments.

Warburton Priory

class=notpageimage|

Approximate locations of monastic houses in Greater Manchester, click the name to jump to further detail, click the red dot to jump to the individual article, if it exists (BTW it does not).

The following is a shortened list of monastic houses in Greater Manchester for pog experiments by TOF for (Sir/King) John's review, England.
Click on pog to go to linked article, as per normal or old/existing practice, and new click on name to interlink to this pages entry.

Foundation	Image	Communities & Provenance	Formal Name or Dedication & Alternative Names	wikimapia location Guide
Warburton Priory#		Premonstratensian Canons cell, daughter of Cockersand, Lancashire; founded c.1200 church of St Mary and St Werburgh granted to Cockersand by Adam of Dutton; abandoned before 1271	Warburton Cell	Satellite 53°24′07.6"N-02°27′26.2W Mapped 53°24′07.6"N-02°27′26.2W

Monastic Houses Greater Manchester

Hi There, I've just taken a look at the List of monastic houses in England and scrolled down to the Greater Manchester entry - you might just want to do the same before rolling it out to the other counties. JohnArmagh (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi JohnArmagh, I list these in a kind of process order.
Can you review the following, especially my terminology etc on the lead sections of;

1. Kersal Priory
2. Marland Grange
3. Warburton Priory

Please then review the List of monastic houses in Greater Manchester article, where I amended;

1. The caption for the location map, where I changed "Locations of monastic houses in Greater Manchester" to "Approximate locations of monastic houses in Greater Manchester", (this was also replicated on each individual article).
2. Added the pogging # function.
3. Linked, (as per standard practice) to individual article on both pogs and table entries.
4. The transclusion notation.

Please then review the List of monastic houses in England#Greater Manchester where I amended;

1. The lead section (for this section only).
2. The tranclusion notation.

I will rest on any further amendments or rolling this out onto any other counties until your complete review (and if required a further review by other interested parties), I will then action any and all amendments required for the above only on that advice and then if needed allow a further review period.Cheers.The Original Filfi (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedians in New Zealand user boxes

Hello The Original Filfi! Just a notice that I moved the contents of Wikipedians in New Zealand user boxes (a page you created) over to Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand a preferred location for this. Best, ///EuroCarGT 03:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 72nd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Category:1860s in the United States]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Page properties

Hi Admins and or Editor Guru's, A weird one for you.... and as before, possibly a tricky one to brighten or ruin your day, I hope it is the former
Is it possible to find which pages/articles have a width property that extends beyond the normal page width? or to re-phrase, Is it possible to find which pages/articles have the need for two scroll bars, both the standard and acceptable vertical scroll bar and the much less desirable horizontal scroll bar? Thank you. The Original Filfi (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Short answer: No. For example, depending on how narrow your screen or your browser window screen is, I believe every page with an image can be made to show a horizontal scrollbar. And those are not the only ones. Huon (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Huon, thank you for the answer, I though that may be the case. Really I was only looking at the standard page width i.e. wikipedias standard article page width vs outside of those parameters. I have seen some lovely articles with "in-page" scroll bars, showing panorama's, the periodic table (large) etc and I have no issue with any of those, I was more focusing on;

1. Incorrectly formatted tables that exceed those dimensions.
2. Incorrectly formatted no-wiki text that exceed those dimensions.
3. Incorrectly formatted reference entries that exceed those dimensions.

and the like of the above. I was going to try to reformat, if possible, trying to improve the ease of navigation of those articles. Obviously not all articles that exceed these dimension are necessarily incorrectly formatted or indeed that a suitable solution exist, as in the F1 tables, they give a lot of information and there may not be a better way to provide and display this.
Kind regards
The Original Filfi (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Jordan 197

Hi The Original Filfi. FYI, I have reverted your changes to Jordan 197, returning the article to the WP:FORMULA1 standard format, for consistency with the 400-or-so other F1 car articles. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi DH85868993, just to clarify, are you telling me that none of the 400 or so articles (including WP:FORMULA1 fit into the standard page width? That they all extend beyond the normal margins, and that this is acceptable? To read these on a portable device would be extra intensive and quite cumbersome I feel.
I also note that Jordan 197 includes a tyre column which is not in the standard F1 format and that the key is not shown. As a potential part-solution if the "Entrant" column included the engine the seasons table would be only mm's over normal page width, addin a or some "small" tags could solve the rest of this issue.
Your though?
The Original Filfi (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Update, just saw the tyre column, still do not like this format, I can see its uses and certainly agree standardising is best practice, but to not fit to page seems a bad way to go. Cheers.The Original Filfi (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ancient cities and towns visited by Hsüan-tsang

The article Ancient cities and towns visited by Hsüan-tsang has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Has no sources. Hsuan-tsang may be notable, but why is it important to know the towns he went to?

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of members of the Pan-African Parliament, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Re Machan film

Hi. It was a spam blog (from what I recall), so you can go ahead and remove it. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sarte and Bourdelle

Hi

Thanks for your imput. Much appreciated Weglinde (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Claude Grange

Hi

Some time ago you offered help if ever I needed it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Weglinde/sandbox

I would appreciate your help. When I tried to upload this article from my sandbox the request was rejected but frankly I did not really understand why. Would it be possible for you to look into this for me.

The rejection stated- We are sorry, but your edit can not be completed at this time. Your contribution appears to contain a link to archiving service archive.today / archive.is. In accordance with Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC, links to the archive.is family are not allowed to be added to Wikipedia. Please feel free to make your contribution with a non-archived URL or a URL from a different archiving service (such as web.archive.org). If you believe this message is in error, we apologize for the inconvenience, and ask that you please report this error for correction and assistance.

Thanks for your help Weglinde (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Weglinde, the ref in "==Head of Mademoiselle Suzanne Ursault==" is causing the conflict, is there another source you could use? or you could try, remove the ref and or section, upload and then replace when a new source has been found. The Original Filfi (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant! Article now loaded. Could not find another source for Head of Mademoiselle Suzanne Ursault but not crucial so removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Grange Your help much appreciated. Weglinde (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation redirects are required per WP:INTDABLINK.

Please do not blank or delete "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects to "Foo" disambiguation pages. These are required by WP:INTDABLINK for the orderly operation of the project. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Important Geological Sites

Category:Important Geological Sites, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 06:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Template intended for article talk page

I reverted your edit to Baron Grantchester, as the template you added is intended for the article talk page, and it's already there at Talk:Baron Grantchester. I see that you've added the same template to other article pages, so would you please revert your edits. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with your David Biddulph.I am starting to revert them.Please add them only to talk pages not to articles.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the unmatched curly brackets in your reverts (reported in the section below) seems to apply to many articles. Please correct them. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

True some brackets were broken would suggest you use Undo or rollback as I did that would simpler.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@David Biddulph:@Pharaoh of the Wizards: humble apologies both (and all) I believe I have now reverted all my cock-ups that were not completed by some other helpful editors (if I missed any please let me know and I will fix asap), it will not happen again. kind regards The Original Filfi (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Baron Dickinson

I am about to revert your pair of *un*matching edits, which have left lots of unmatched curly brackets. Perhaps you are using a script or something which you should check? And if you know about titles and things, please just look at my comment on the talk page. Thanks! Imaginatorium (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Imaginatorium: as per above apologies and thank you.The Original Filfi (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to A Design for Life may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• song "The Intense Humming of Evil" on the album ''[[The Holy Bible (album)|The Holy Bible]]''.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Power |first1=Martin |title=Manic Street Preachers |date=17 October 2010 |
• the cassette included a live version of "[[Bright Eyes (Art Garfunkel song)|Bright Eyes]]".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Power |first1=Martin |title=Manic Street Preachers |date=17 October 2010 |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Agatha Christie may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Adson's sign may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• <ref>{{cite book|last1=Magee|first1=David|title=Orthopedic Physical Assessment|date=2014|publisher=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Accessdate

Since when is a valid parameter of {{cite web}} superfluous? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Walter Görlitz:, sorry for delay in replying, in this case with no valid url or web address having an access date for a non existent item is both false information and superfluous, this also then lists this in an error Cat, my view is that once a true url/address is populated a new access date should be added as of the date it is verified as working. The Original Filfi (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Accessdate parameter in {{cite}} templates?

Just wondering why you're bulk stripping all these? If an EL fails and has to be recovered from an archive site (a not uncommon event), this date is helpful for recovering the link. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The Original Filfi, For the avoidance of doubt. Please stop your high-speed AWB removal of |accessdate=. —Sladen (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

At least one of these |accessdate= removals was in relation to a website.[1]. This was the third diff I reviwed. Please could you: (a) clarify precisely the configuration of the "auto save" mode setting for the operation of AWB on your account, (b) assist in the revision and clean-up of the whole lot. It extremely hard to be able to perform any sort of satisfactory oversight at a speed of twelve-edits-per-minute. (One every five seconds). —Sladen (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I've now cleaned up Allan Bell by populating the missing |url=[2], and the next one after it Allah by populating the |url= + the rest of the {{cite}} and consolidating the refs.[3]. Yes, this is time-consuming but these are useful edits and something that perhaps I could encourage you to put your energy into, rather than the high-speed destructive deletion of carefully inserted material that is needed for later identification of source material. —Sladen (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thought I'd have another look, and tried back up at the top of the list: same thing again at Ally Rehmtullah, [4], and the one after it Ally Musika, [5]. —Sladen (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Another consecutive couple from clicking in the middle of the list: All I Want for Christmas Is You (Vince Vance & The Valiants song) which had a perfectly good |url=, and All in the Air at Once, [6]. I sincerely hope the rest of your automated editing does not have this astounding error-rate. —Sladen (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

At Algester, Queensland, your AWB script removed the accessdate from templates which are used to generate citations with URLs (for example, to online databases such as census data, gazetteers). We have many government agencies whose domain name and web structures changes frequently and so we cannot put static URLs into citations but must use templates to generate these URLs from their "unique parts", so that we can update thousands of citations by fixing the URL prefix just once in the template. Please stop applying your AWB script to templates that generate URLs. Kerry (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The Original Filfi, per WP:MEATBOT and WP:AWB#Rules of use, please could you prioritise responding to and cleaning one issue before moving on to other things. Of your five edits since, further correction has been needed to your edits on[7] two[8] of those articles. It is unfair and unacceptable to introduce this burden on other editors to clean-up after you. Please respond here and confirm that you understand the severity of the situation. —Sladen (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sladen:Acknowledged, while I was considering my actions and response to the above, I made 5 edits to clear known errors, 1 needed a correction and 1 an additional field and not technically a correction. It was never my intention to place a burden on other wikipedians, and I hold myself responsible for my actions. Why an ANI had to be raised and here a thrice repeated request to desist with these awb edits seems an overkill, especially as I view myself as very collaborative and open to advice or to offer assistance where or when I can.The Original Filfi (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The Original Filfi, thank you for the reply and confirming that you've read this thread. Per the above, please could you confirm, (a) the mode AWB is being operated in on your account, (b) ideas for how we are going to (collectively) clean-up and/or revert this run of edits. —Sladen (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The Original Filfi. This revert[9] of Beyond My Ken's clean-up is completely inappropriate given the circumstances. I have now reverted this[10]. Please focus on addressing the issues here on this talk page until you can demonstrate consensus. Maintaining radio silence after this level of disruption is unacceptable. —Sladen (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Sladen: as per my revert comment on Anna Politkovskaya, this is exactly the error this Cat is highlighting Beyond My Ken's incorrect clean-up is completely inappropriate given any circumstances, as it was reinstating an error for no gain. I have reviewed 25+ of my original edits that are still current and all were correct, I have also reviewed all the ones mentioned above and all were correct with the cite news, cite journal templates, populating a url post this edit does not alter the fact that it was an error at that point in time. My count is 2(Two) for the ones that I actually did break, Algester, Queensland and All I Want for Christmas Is You (Vince Vance & The Valiants song) for these I apologise. The ones that had no valid url (and hence the access date was a fiction and which left an error in the appropriate Cat intact) I may of in effect archived some history that could of been useful to trace the original url assuming it had been removed as a dead-link incorrectly previously (this is still recoverable/available in history as is the dead link). And while I was reviewing these and doing the above and doing other things in my life this was not maintaining "radio silence". Again from my point of view a total overkill, in both the nature of this "talk" and the wordage used. I intend to do a sweep for similar actual errors as the two mentioned above, correct/revert those if they exist.The Original Filfi (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There was no error, and your edit was inappropriate. BMK (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Beyond My Ken: there is an error on that page thanks to an access date without a url, the Reuters published date defines the reference, the access date is irrelevant and cause this error, this to me is fairly plain, (the other 3 errors on the page dead-links and the like were not in my remit at this time, however I am happy to try to resolve these as well at some stage in the future) re-reverting my edit without reference to this error being caused, supplying a url to the Reuters source and with such a glib and technically incorrect statement adds nothing to wiki or the collaborative process,The Original Filfi (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That is pedantic in the extreme. As the material was clearly online, a URL is pssible, so the correct fix is not to remove the accessdate, but to provide a URL. BMK (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Beyond My Ken: even if I manually did the above, rather than trying to clear these errors using awb, the access date would by necessity and for accuracy sake need to be changed, re-instating this piece of fiction added nothing. Being a pedant and striving for accuracy is not such a bad thing for a wiki editor many of us show these traits, while also accusing others of the same. Finally then, rather than reverting my edit why did you not add this url and add a new access date to completely resolve this issue?The Original Filfi (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Sladen:, in addition to me manually checking 25+ mentioned above, I have since checked about the same number of either random article or one that stood out (large kb changes), I have also completed my "sweeps" and articles have been corrected or reverted as required, for the record I swept for "{{QPN", and "{{Census" to cover any template urls, for "billboard", "allmusic" and "{{certification" to cover all music articles, and "pure-url" and "quick-on", I believe I have caught any actual errors. The numbers: article error resolved main awb run 394, actual caused errors 5 (incorrectly removed access date), in the prior awb run, article error resolved 36 (some of the same article were also in the main awb run above), there was 5 errors caused due to a mistake in my parameters used, 1 mistake by my manual typing (incorrect date) and 1 further error on the book cite which I manually adjusted (whitespace etc) which you have since corrected. Any final thoughts or comments or I hold this matter closed.The Original Filfi (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Original Filfi Yes, I would like to discuss this issue more. Before we do that I would like a straight answer to (a) above on the record. If the question is unclear I would be happy to rephrase it. —Sladen (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Sladen:, I read two (a)'s above, the first "(a) clarify precisely the configuration of the "auto save" mode setting for the operation of AWB on your account", as far as I am aware there is no "auto save" mode, so no configuration. The second (a) "(a) the mode AWB is being operated in on your account", if I read this correctly this is a repeat of the above and my answer is the same, if, however it is a reference to a module, and for completeness, I have no modules loaded or being operated on my account.The Original Filfi (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Original Filfi Could you confirm that you reviewed and manually pressed Save for every single one of these AWB edits. —Sladen (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Sladen:, The changes were reviewed at a glance, in 95% of cases, as only the changes were highlighted in the top section of awb, the few of the articles that had more than 2 access dates removed, needed a scroll down of two or so more clicks. I then manually pressed "save" for each and every edit.The Original Filfi (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. —Sladen (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record: WP:ANI#Since when did accessdate become superfluous? —Sladen (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ISO dates

I've reviewed your last edit[11] which introduced an error in conversion of a date from ISO to mdy format. I've now corrected this[12]. Reviewing MOS:DATEFORMAT we can see that ISO is an acceptable format for refs/tables, therefore I'm unclear about the basis for performing conversion, could you point me to it? —Sladen (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Military dates

Because the US-Military use both NATO (dmy) and US-customary (mdy) dates formats it's not possible to do an automated conversion when both numbers are less-than-or-equal to twelve. This is probably why these weren't already converted. An obviously ambiguous date is better than an non-obviously incorrect date. I've corrected a bunch these automated edits, by checking the cited source and the style used on that particular website: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] as well as one where the pattern matcher failed to notice the year having five digits.[22] Please could you work through the remaining few dozen so that the burden is not placed entirely up on other editors to clean-up afterwards. —Sladen (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Tennis

This [23] was extremely laborious to correct [24]. Please could you do a similar rescue + repair job to [25] as the error-rate is probably similar (without needing to check the URLs, I can see an |accessdate= apparently preceding its |date=. —Sladen (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, The Original Filfi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, The Original Filfi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, The Original Filfi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello The Original Filfi! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Current events for September 10th

Sorry for having to revert your edits! The story you were attempting to post about was already featured on Portal:Current events/2021 September 8. Also if you ever have any questions on formatting or how to post stories check out Wikipedia:How the Current events page works, it should answer most if not all your questions. Cheers! --Newsjunky12 (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of republican responses to the 2020 presidential elections (October 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by IVORK was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:The Original Filfi/List of republican responses to the 2020 presidential elections and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:The Original Filfi/List of republican responses to the 2020 presidential elections, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— IVORK _Talk 00:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, The Original Filfi! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — IVORK Talk 00:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi IVORK _Talk 00:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC), the comments seem factual and therefore neutral to me! (point taken though, lol) This "early" submission for approval was centred on the fact that I want to get other editors to help and add all other senators to this list that at one time or other meet this criteria, any idea how I can do that? cheersThe Original Filfi (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I would start by listing it on relevant projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics & perhaps Talk:2020 United States presidential election. I'm not overly familiar with US politics so am not too sure past that. — IVORK _Talk 02:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks IVORK _Talk, done part 1 for now. I will try to add some more senators and I will work on reference's for my McCoonnell blurb, lolThe Original Filfi (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The big lie (October 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tol was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:The Original Filfi/The big lie and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:The Original Filfi/The big lie, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tol, I obviously knew that the article Big lie existed, I referenced it and placed a note in my first edit summary. The point of this article is many-fold, including; 1. Firstly and most importantly, the EXACT phrase and topic "The big lie" needs to be near the top of the google search and it needs to be exact. 2. The Trump history dates back to at least 2016 which is yet to be added. and 3. kind of continuing from two, the vastness of usage by Trump deserves a stand-alone article to be able to list the significant usages. I cannot accept your response as anything other than cursory.The Original Filfi (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I don't believe that the term "big lie" specifically in reference to the 2020 United States presidential election is notable. I recommend adding content to the existing page on the general term, big lie, or at Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Refusal to accept 2020 electoral loss. That you think that this "needs to be near the top of the google search" is troubling — long-term significance is more important than current news coverage when determining primary topics, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Determining a primary topic. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Tol, thank you for another cursory reply, please googe exact by a date range, 3.4mil results 90% to do with Trump, how notable do you want??22:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)The Original Filfi (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I value conciseness. Again, primary topics are not biased towards recent events. It would be problematic as an article about the refusal to accept election results because the title is not neutral, and I think it would also be problematic as an article about the phrase in the context of the election because there isn't enough content distinct from big lie to justify its own article. If you disagree, you're welcome to move it to mainspace yourself. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Tol, This is not imo a current event, it is a tactic used by trump that mirrors Hitler, it stared in 2016 or prior, it is ongoing and will continue to go on for another (at least) 3 years, it has already had and may have huge impact for democracy, world security etc. FYI: 1. I did a google search term comparison, please find link to that url> https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=trump%20big%20lie,The%20big%20lie , note "The big lie" way out-reaches "Trump big lie", for completeness (over conciseness) "big lie" slightly over-reaches "TBL" but does not have wiki near the top 2. Conciseness is not anywhere near the same as cursory. 3. I am terrified that this ongoing issue and usage will damn the world to Trump's erratic and divisive politics. 4. Every false audit, every bit of pressure trump has already applied, every failed court case more than distinctly justifies its own article so these can be detailed. thoughtsThe Original Filfi (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! One cannot know ahead of time if something will have long-lasting historical effects, and predicting the future isn't really relevant. What is relevant is usage and long-term significance. If you wish to add to Trump's misinformation on the election, you can do so at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#2020 election. If you wish to add to the usage of the term "big lie" in reference to such misinformation, you can do so at Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election. The primary topic of "big lie" is still the term itself, especially as used by Hitler. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi The Original Filfi, I saw that you reached out on my talks page to add another npov on this matter. Personally, I would advise that if you would like to continue developing this, pursuing a route of maybe "utilization/adaptation of the big lie by the Trump campaign". Thus you can develop a comparative and distinct article on the topic (though no guarantees it would be approved). This would also avoid speculation and your personal opinions on the matter, and rather approach it from an objective and sourceable perspective. This is an interesting matter since it mixes a lot of history, trump, and then also attempts to deal with further developments, so it is quite a hard topic to cover. Be careful, and I look forward to seeing where you take it! Willthehelpfuleditor (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding User:The Original Filfi/List of republican responses to the 2020 presidential elections

Hello, The Original Filfi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:The Original Filfi/List of republican responses to the 2020 presidential elections, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding User:The Original Filfi/The big lie

Hello, The Original Filfi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:The Original Filfi/The big lie, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:The Original Filfi/The big lie

Hello, The Original Filfi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The big lie".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth Montgomery edit

After reading your edit summary about the New York Times citation in Elizabeth Montgomery, I added a link to an archived copy of the article, so the content is now available outside of the paywall. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Constitution of Kazakhstan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kazak. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Trump article

You cannot demand that other editors tell you their views about Donald Trump before making, or as part of making, an edit. Instead of edit warring, please discuss your concerns on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank for you 2 cents

Points to note:

They did not improve this article

They did not "make an edit" they reverted with spurious reasoning

They removed sourced content

They deleted the truth that is playing out now, hence both its relevance and need to be noted

Asking to ensure no bias or COI in their removal of content is not a stretch

I asked (demanded in your parlance) to not revert and if you feel you need to do so declare your allegiance or any COI that may exist, well within spirit of the wiki policy.The Original Filfi (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Notices about sensitive topic areas

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay

Golden Bay Air are holding some seats for us until 21 November

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)