User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Dash

Thanks for your help working this out. Are you ready to support at Talk:An_Post-Chain_Reaction#Requested_move_22_December_2015? Dicklyon (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Help with moves

Can I ask for your help with some article moves. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling#Cannondale team. Right, this is what needs to be done:

• Cannondale Pro Cycling Team → Liquigas (over redirect)
• Cannondale-Garmin → Cannondale Pro Cycling Team

Thanks, BaldBoris 04:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

...and Template:Cannondale seasons → Template:Liquigas seasons. I remember always getting a kick out of hearing Phil pronounce that name "leeky gas". :) Wbm1058 (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Ct needs updated too. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I see: Template:Cycling data CAN → Template:Cycling data LIQ, over redirect? Wbm1058 (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. 50+ edits later, I think I've got it mostly cleaned up. Lots of redirects to bypass. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Cheers for the cleanups. Will need some more I'm sure. Ha ha, good old Phil. BaldBoris 14:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you move Caja Rura–Seguros RGA → Caja Rural–Seguros RGA (over redirect), typo. Thanks. BaldBoris 00:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

And Androni–Sidermec → Androni Giocattoli (over redirect). BaldBoris 03:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Faulkner

Hi there. I'm not sure why you reverted my edits to correct the target for Faulkner. William Faulkner is not the basename in this case and a reader searching for the word should be sent to the disambiguation page per my edits. Or am I missing something? Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 22:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Philg88, note the hatnote on William Faulkner. Your change populated Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review, that's what got my attention. If the reader searching for the word should be sent to the disambiguation page, then the disambiguation page should be titled Faulkner, not Faulkner (disambiguation).

I have no objection if you move Faulkner (disambiguation) to Faulkner, if you want to be bold, but others, such as JHunterJ, per this edit, might disagree.

Faulkner may be much more well known in the US than in other English-speaking countries. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that and you are quite right that the disambiguation page should be at Faulkner. As for being well known, even Nelson, perhaps the best known admiral in history has to suffer the ignominy of a disambiguation page. Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 23:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Not quite right yet. I've disagreed as Wbm1058 predicted, as was obvious from the edit histories. Philg88, please note that the primary topic for a title does not have to exist at the base name for the title. That's what the dab hatnotes are for. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

VisualEditor

Numbers

Hi Wbm1058,

You asked a while ago about how many editors were using VisualEditor each month, rather than the each-day stats that are given on the dashboard. It appears that the most recent answer is that a bit under 1800 editors here at the English Wikipedia saved an edit with VisualEditor during the month of June. This represents about 5% of the people who have (ever) opted in to VisualEditor (most of whom are not currently active editors) and almost 1.5% of all registered editors who made any edit at all last month.

@Risker:, you might be interested in these numbers, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation

Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Wbm1058,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Setting magic words

I've done some analysis of VisualEditor's setting of behavior switches, see the archived discussion. I intend to follow up on this. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Geonotice mistake

• [1]

My bad. I guess I either misread 15 January as 25 January, or made a typo and typed 26 when I meant 16. Deryck C. 22:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Christian Schmidt Brewing Company: Your revision

Please initiate a talk with me before making arbitrary changes on my work. My picture caption was intentional to define that this is not of the Schmidt's in MN. Furthermore it's only your opinion that it should have been changed, not based on factual or material differences. Thanks, Rvenne01—Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 23 January 2016

@Rvenne01: Hi, if you take a closer look at my version, you will see that I did not remove the caption. There is a special infobox parameter for that. All I did what convert the infobox to the standard formatting, I did not change any of the text content. My edit was in the spirit of WP:Bold, revert, discuss; that's why I didn't discuss it first. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The Simpsons - include size problem

Could you please outline and explain the include size problem at WT:TV. Your solution is not at all ideal as it contains redundant text (most notably the episode summaries) and will result in errors over time due to now having two episode lists for each season (this is one of the main reasons we transclude!). It's also defeating the purpose of splitting into individual seasons. However, the problem is obviously very real and will likely appear at other pages, so project-wide understanding is required. We may even be able to address this in MOS:TV or provide some other resolution that is more ideal. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Related discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 202#Cite templates too large to fit on some pages. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Today I implemented a novel solution, which split some seasons of this long-running TV series to List of The Simpsons episodes*. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons episodes

List of The Simpsons episodes* has been nominated for renaming. I've mentioned the problems with the post-expand include size limits that resulted in the page's creation, but fear it might go over the heads of the participants. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was close. After fixing all of the articles, the post-expand include size is 2001265 bytes. There really are some cases where we should be able to limit discussions to people who know what they are talking about. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons episodes (2)

I was wondering if you might be able to move List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 21–present) back to List of The Simpsons episodes. An editor has moved it without discussing, breaking the transclusions to the page. I've made a request at WP:RM, but I noticed that you were around, and since you're aware of the issues with this page.... --AussieLegend (✉) 18:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks! --AussieLegend (✉) 18:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ΑΒΒ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relaxation. 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) 09:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Someone fixed it with this 23 March 2016 edit. Great! wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Maria Goeppert Mayer

You seem to be a bit confused here. In German, the "o" with an umlaut (ö) is used interchangeably with the "oe" form. In the United States, the lack of typewriters capable of handling the umlaut led to a preference in the sources for the "oe" form. She never changed her name. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Hawkeye7. Yes, I know what an umlaut does, and as that link says, "if umlaut letters are not available, it is usual to replace them with the underlying vowel followed by an ⟨e⟩." Diaeresis (diacritic) § Umlaut and Wiktionary have an interesting explanation of how the umlaut evolved – first "oe", then put the "e" above the "o", then simplify the "e" to two dots. I did not know that. I don't know what current usage trends are in Germany, but it's possible that the language may be trending back towards "oe" and lose the umlaut, as English has lost "æ", with a few rare exceptions, such as Encyclopædia Britannica. My point is that she likely used the umlaut in Germany and stopped using it in the US, not entirely for lack of the character on typewriters, but to blend into the melting pot. I think the Wikipedia convention is to use umlauts and diacritics on names of people who spent their entire lives in their native countries, but to "Americanize" the name when they emigrate to an English-speaking country and become notable for their work in that country. BTW, the reason I ran into you at Edward Teller is that Maria Göppert-Mayer is tagged with {{R from misspelling}} (and has been since June 2007‎). My rationale is similar to why Stanislaw Ulam is not titled Stanisław Ulam. See Talk:Stanislaw Ulam#Requested move for the debate on that. In English, the umlaut is only used in "sensational spellings" or foreign branding, e.g. Häagen-Dazs. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This is interesting: German orthography reform of 1996. It seems odd to me, to see three consecutive identical letters in a word ("triple consonants"):

• Kongreßdenkmal == Kongress (Congress) + denkmal (monument or memorial)
• Kongreßstraße (old orthography – I see "orthography" is a broader concept than just "spelling") becomes Kongressstraße (new orthography). Translates to Congress Street, or as a compound, Congressstreet.

I'm struggling to think of an English compound with triple consonants, and coming up empty.

Clusters of up to five consonants are possible in English. See consonant cluster for some examples. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I researched this and brought it up because Hohe Meißner is tagged as an {{R from misspelling}}. Now I see that the correct spelling is Hoher Meißner (de:Hoher Meißner). Admit that I don't understand why the German version titles it with an "r", but drops that "r" in the lead sentence. See the history shows moved Hoher Meißner to Hoher Meissner over redirect: Moved back to original title; Use English! I think there may be more tolerance for diacritics under "use English" guidelines than there is for something even more foreign-looking like the eszett, though ß is still more tolerated than Russian or Chinese characters. I guess we look to see the extent that English-language reliable sources use "ß" vs. the extent that they use "ss", or the extent that they use "ö" vs. "oe". I don't like turning this into a technical argument along the lines of "they (reliable sources) only used 'ss' or 'oe' because their typewriters/fonts/computers/whatever didn't support doing it the "right" way, and now that we can do it the "right" way, we should." Wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that what has happened is wider access to unicode, which not only makes it easy for us to type in the letters with diacritical marks, but means that they won't become funny characters on the readers' screens. I am happy with Maria Göppert-Mayer as you've got it. I moved Leo Szilard to remove the diacritical marks at the request of his biographer. In the case of BLPs like Edina Müller, I simply ask what form they prefer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for updating SCOTUS infoboxes

I'm sure it took a fair bit of work to update the Court composition parameter for the SCOTUS infobox (not to mention the updates you did for the individual cases). I want to personally thank you for your efforts; your willingness to go the extra mile is one example of what makes this community a great place. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. AutoWikiBrowser made it go a lot quicker. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox SCOTUS case
• Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/doc
• Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/courts

These will need updated again when a new nominee is confirmed. wbm1058 (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Redirect categorization

Hi Wbm1058! You've been interested in redirect categorization and the This is a redirect template in the past, so I wanted to let you know that there is a discussion at Template talk:This is a redirect#One parameter that might interest you.  Good faith! Paine  21:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Millennials

Hi, Wbm1058,
I didn't mean your edit. I just noticed that the IPs were altering some details of the article. It is frequently a target for editors who want to change the years of who is considered a millennial. Why? I have no idea. But since you are looking over the article, I trust you can return it to the stage it was at before today's flurry of editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Liz, seems that millennials themselves may have some strong views on whether they are part of that group, but the lead states there is no consensus on the date range, and people shouldn't change the opinions of referenced sources.

In searching for the last clean revision, I saw that 2606:6000:610A:9000:CDBB:FFD8:B867:2BC6, 2601:680:C103:1544:A98A:30F4:7BBB:DFEE and 2606:6000:610A:9000:CCF:5094:76AF:3CED all made good edits; that last one had me searching to find the culprit who changed 1982 to 1981, and I had to dig back all the way to 25 January 2016 to find the culprit. I found one other element of their change that hadn't yet been reverted, so I reverted it. When you have to go back a full month to find the last "good" version (actually I'm not sure there isn't still something that's been missed), I think pending changes protection is needed, and I'm glad that BethNaught implemented it. Best, wbm1058 (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Page move

Hello, I made a mistake in reverting one of your page moves, and now can't finish the job because the target page was already redirected twice before. I've noticed you have admin rights though. Could you move Gongora (surname) to Góngora (surname) please. Rest of the discussion on Talk:Gongora (surname) is self-explanatory I believe. --Midas02 (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see that you got another admin to do it as a technical request, while I was sleeping. I'll add my thoughts at the RM discussion. wbm1058 (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted to get it out of the way quickly to avoid confusion. You actually jumped into the discussion whilst I was waiting on Denten's reaction to the page move he had made. I had already proposed to take it to WP:RM, so now that has been done, and we can see how others feel about it. Rgds, --Midas02 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

typo?

"if it considers itself not of moment to most people in "wikiworld"" ?? Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I was just parroting Alanscottwalker's earlier response to me, so I dunno. Their point wasn't totally clear to me, I admit. wbm1058 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Good work!

It's satisfying to see you rolling back BilCat's idiocy here. Thank you for your work. - 2001:558:1400:10:7C77:F183:8F67:F369 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm looking forward to reading what the National Archives says. Indeed, it's looking like it could be very interesting. wbm1058 (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
3. DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
5. Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

Toil

Thanks very much for closing that with a common sense well explained close. Just a question / Suggestion for In ictu oculi. In the future, when you create other broad concept articles about everyday-word concepts, start them at a disambiguated title, / I actually thought it was at Toil (concept), not at Toil, but will check the page history. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, yes, that's right, you did start it at Toil (concept) and that's where it still sits, deleted. Sorry if I implied otherwise. wbm1058 (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, would you mind please just inserting "(as you did)" just so it's clear to anyone else who strolls by :). I suspect that now the album is off top of pops spot there'd be no objection to actually having an article on toil as a concept, but best to leave it for a few months. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. wbm1058 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Moves

Hi, I saw that you recently closed some move discussions. Could you close this one as well as it's 3 weeks old and there's unanimous support? Thanks, Feedback 22:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on it, that's a tricky one to implement. wbm1058 (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. wbm1058 (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you, not only for implementing the move, but for adjusting all the links before hand. That's a lot of effort, and it deserves recognition. oknazevad (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Unicode

The unicode template no longer does anything. Since it features on your user page I thought you might like to know. Bazj (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Mary Lambert (director) Move

I am confused as to your recent decision at Talk:Mary Lambert (director), as it seems there was consensus for a move of the singer to the base title as per WP:TWODABS. While vote counts are generally not definitive, following the proposal by Cuchullain via WP:TWODABS, there was only one oppose. This seems to support a move of the singer to the base title. I was not involved in the discussion, but was going to close it myself once one more comment came in, so I had it on my watch list. Just asking you to take a second look at this is all.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yea, I've been giving this a second look as I manually disambiguate over a hundred links that are predominantly to the director who is a notable director of horror movies and music videos. The director is heavily embedded into the encyclopedia. In terms of long-term significance, this isn't even close. Per WP:TWODABS, there is no primary topic. It generally takes an unusual scenario to just jump straight from one primary topic to another overnight, without some time spent in the middle first. The !vote was something like 3-4, so that's not a clear consensus. Would be 4-4 if I voted. The director is still active, so links are still being created for both. Maybe after the director retires, it might be worth reconsideration. wbm1058 (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool, just wanted to hear a bit more of your reasoning, thanks for explaining.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wheel War!!!

Seriously though, thanks, I wasn't paying attention. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

And now I've moved the talk page too. It's a mistake I've made before myself. Easy to do when you're first learning the page-move interface. wbm1058 (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but what's my excuse? It may not look like it, but I've been moving pages for a while... -Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot1058 3

Your bot task request has been approved for trial. Please see the request page for details and limitations. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Wbm1058, your bot task request (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot1058 3) has been approved. A start up throttle has been requested, please see the request page for details. You may of course use a slower roll out if you would like. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you, or have you ever been

I'm curious what motivated your question to the candidate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anarchyte. No objections if it's just light curiosity, but I haven't interacted with you often enough to be able to read this sort of thing. →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The name obviously brings anarchism to mind. It feels like an alternate form of anarchist. While anarchyte has always been a red-link, it's the sort of thing I wouldn't be surprised to have been turned blue by a certain former administrator who was a prolific creator of redirects. While anarchism, as well as socialism, has reflexive negative connotations for many, I note that arguably Wikipedia is a stateless, self-governed society based on voluntary institutions – that's the definition of anarchism as given in the lead. The answer to my question was not expected, though unfortunately not totally surprising either. I was hoping for a little explanation of their philosophy. Instead I got an answer that stretches credibility. I wonder which name set generated that name Ninja? Klingon? wbm1058 (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Reading (most of) the oppose votes, I'm glad to not see any mentions of leftism. If there were, that would not be the first time that the candidate of an RfA during the 21st century was, in the time-honoured disguise and borrowed language of the previous, badgered, condemned, and interrogated, t_i all for the crime of holding and not renouncing their viewpoint on something totally unrelated to Wikipedia. [They eventually ceased editing for a significant period of time.]_i Perhaps times are changing. Perhaps "anarchyte" was simply not explicit enough to evoke the spirits of the past. Or perhaps he's not even an anarchist. But whichever, it very well could have been worse. →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I just noticed a typo I made when drafting my response (the placement of the bracketed text), that I've just fixed. →Σσς. (Sigma) 07:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Saint Seiya

YEah i know yours wasn't vandalism, but the ones prior to yours was :)--Refuteku (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Followup on Interactive Brokers/Thomas Peterffy

Hi again Wbm,

I remembered your comments at Talk:Thomas Peterffy that went into further detail about Interactive Broker's company structure. I was rehired by them to contribute more to IB's article, and also merge the two back together. My new draft is located here; I still have images to process before I have people at IB and WP review it. As an occasional COI editor, I'm used to the whole process including having an uninvolved editor publish the draft, which is the final step for this. I'd be interested if you would share your thoughts, of course, I may hope to make it become the first FA in the topic of finance.

More importantly, I remember that your changes to Thomas Peterffy's article were left incomplete (compare pages), and I'd be very glad if more of this could be completed again. Thank you, ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ɱ: You mean we don't yet have a single featured article in the topic area of finance? Incredible. Your COI disclosures & conduct are exemplary. I feel your pain re being taken to AfD as a "reward" for your disclosures. Just noting your recent editing of User:Ɱ/Thomas Peterffy2 should I use some of that? Would be nice to get the full birthdate into his bio, though I was getting mixed signals from you regarding what IB approved of and I'm unsure of the reliability of that Hungarian source. wbm1058 (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey thanks, I'm glad. I took a further look at FAs, at first I only looked at the Finance Wikiproject. However the Business, economics, and finance section of the list has a few vaguely related; the only one really related to Wall Street-type finance is the Panic of 1907. In 2014 and a little bit this year I wrote the more full biography of Peterffy at that sandbox. I did plenty of research and was very interested in everything that I found, however in the end IB didn't want me to add any new information regarding Peterffy; he's a really private person. I reminded them however that all the content I used is fully public, so there's nothing stopping anyone outside the company from adding it. As for the birthdate, there is one source that more-or-less claims it as 9/29, not 9/30. It's all up to you, we could even list both. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Backlog

When {{backlog}} is used on a page that is not a category, the wording still renders as "This category has a backlog...". Could you fix it? 103.6.159.72 (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I assume the page you are referring to is Draft:Richard Arthur Norton movelist. I removed the {{backlog}} template from that, as it is not intended to be used on lists that are not categories. I also posted a message about that list at the related discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) topic ban in order to attempt to get a consensus on how to handle this unique situation. If you have additional concerns that I haven't addressed here, please do let me know. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, now I see that IPs similar to you (perhaps it is you?) have created other lists in project space, such as Wikipedia:Requested moves/Misplaced XfDs. I'll look into your request, in terms of how we handle lists that are backlogged work queues. wbm1058 (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I see, it used to say "page", but with this 15:34, 29 May 2014 edit, it was changed to default to "category". – wbm1058 (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I finally implemented that namespace check which uses "category" in the category namespace, and "page" in all other namespaces, with this edit. Sorry it took me 5 months to get to this. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:RMB is getting long

You may want to help reduce the current RM backlog, since it is now longer than the current discussions themselves. sst✈ 05:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The implementation of page mover rights seems to have brought in some new people to close these, so now the backlog has been brought within normal bounds. I'm tweaking the bot's listing system to make a wider window for closing requests, before they hit "backlog" status. wbm1058 (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You're invited! Great Buckeye Wiknic 2016

Hello there! You are invited to attend the Great Buckeye Wiknic in Columbus, Ohio on Sunday, July 10th from 1:00 to 5:00 PM! Join us for a day in the park for food and socializing with others from the Wikimedia movement. We'll be meeting up at Fred Beekman Park, a park on Ohio State University's campus.

If you're interested, please take a look at our events page for more information, including parking info, food options, and available activities. If you plan on attending, please add your name to the attendees list. We look forward to seeing you!

If you have any questions, feel free to leave one on my talk page. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(Note: If you would like to stop receiving notifications regarding Wikimedia events around Ohio, you may remove your username from this list.)

(minor) primary topic criteria

G'day, you're probably sick of hearing about New York, but so are many others so I thought I'd take this question to you offline to the MR rather than clutter it further.

You referred there a while ago to (minor) primary topic criteria. [2] Tell me more... are these (minor) primary topic criteria documented anywhere, other than in closed RMs and the like?

It's perfectly valid to talk of precedents in this way IMO, probably the best way of looking at them in fact, I just want to check I'm not missing something. Andrewa (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics. While the two major aspects, "usage" and "long-term significance", are the most commonly discussed criteria for defining primary topics, the policy does not limit us to just those two. So yes, in searching for the criterion that has justified the state's primacy for over a decade, I settled on using C's words. I think most New Yorkers would agree with this. I'm kind of amused by the idea that, because the independent Republic of Ireland is only what, over 90 years old now, it's still not the PT. I wonder how old it needs to be to have "long-term significance"? Surely some other minor criteria are in play on that one too ;) I'm not aware that any criteria other than the two major ones are documented anywhere. I haven't given that much thought until now. That one might not be so bad because the Republic occupies a large majority of the land mass of the island, whereas the city occupies only a tiny proportion of the land mass of the state. Imagine the scenario of Sydney being named New South Wales. I suppose it would be too easy if they had named it New Yorks. wbm1058 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly what I was guessing, and much better put than I could have. Andrewa (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I have linked to that reply from Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#higher-level jurisdiction criterion, one of only two diffs because I think it expresses very well one of the two viewpoints I want to examine there. Please check that out and comment here or there if you feel I am misquoting you. Andrewa (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphan tags no longer default display

Was there a discussion for this? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Found most of it. Thanks. See also here. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hardlines listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hardlines. Since you had some involvement with the Hardlines redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Wishva de Silva | Talk 12:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Unicode characters

The article List of Unicode characters has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page is already covered in Wikibooks: Unicode. This Wikibook contains much more comprehensive information than this article.Wetitpig0 (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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. Wetitpig0 (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi

I hope everything is great with you :) Could you please take a look at the articles about Elin Rombo and Lena Sundström. Much appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: I don't speak Swedish, so I can only be of limited help. You might try asking at the Swedish Wikipedians' notice board. Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Wa Tashiro

Please see e.g. [3] or [4] for his connection. GiantSnowman 18:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I see former Kintetsu Corp. President, thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Dab page

Thanks for your work on the gastrointestinal tract dab page. I am trying to build consensus on Talk:gastrointestinal tract to restore the dab page. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: Take a look at Talk:Human gastrointestinal tract § Proposed merge with Gastrointestinal tract. Sigh. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

So now, per the latest RM, we're kind of back to where this started. I'm hoping this is a stable configuration, until more content is added. We still need much more detailed content on animal guts. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Conflict in the "Karaite" topic areas

The various topics titled with "Karaite-like" names have been a source of complex conflict. I regret that I haven't been more helpful in resolving it, but this is far from my main interests and expertise. wbm1058 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

A Sock?

Just to let you know it seems someone says you are a [sockpuppet https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimean_Karaites&diff=prev&oldid=698879278]YuHuw (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. I only wear socks on my feet. Let's continue the discussion over at Talk:Karait. I'm an administrator who prefers to focus on the merits of the arguments being made, rather than on the reputations of the editors making them. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Khereid

Hi Wbm1058, I have come across something complicated. It appears that the Khereid article was originally about the Karaits under the Kerait spelling variation of that name until a blocked user User:Ancientsteppe renamed the article on 06:38, 16 June 2013. After that several other users now blocked (e.g. User:Sczc, User:Toghuchar etc.,) continued to chop it about until it got to its current shambolic state. Quite little on the Khereid page is about the Mongolic people who currently go by that name. Cleaning it all up looks a bit too complicated for a novice like me to handle. I don't really even know where to start! Do you have any suggestions on who to turn to? In the meantime is it possible to put some sort of protection from renaming or moving the current Karait page until all this can be cleaned up just in case "socks" of those users are still about? YuHuw (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a bash, any constructive criticism would be welcome.YuHuw (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that someone reverted your edits and accused you of being a sock. Sorry, I find this attitude to be unfortunate, but refereeing controversial topics is something I've only dabbled in.

I was looking at the history of the "Colour" redirect (see WP:ENGVAR). Note the edit warring that went on for several years, before finally the page was locked down in December 2006. And that's just with a common everyday word for westerners. Now we look at something that is not well known to most western English-language editors, and has not just two, but several alternative spellings due to differing transliterations. I see that the original author of this page, Briangotts, has basically given up on it, and summarizes his reasons at the top of his talk page. It seems that the team with the most, or the most persistent, warriors, often tends to get their way. And often their first tactic, not their last resort, is to immediately pull out the "sock card" on all new editors they encounter that want to change things. I don't know what the answers are, but they aren't easy. I don't recommend trying to get help on noticeboards (often disparagingly known as "drama boards"). I think it would be good to make a list of all of the conflicting topics and what your ideal title for each would be, and try to get some sort of meta-discussion going. I'm not sure I want to put a lot of time into this. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a system for me to verify myself and show my ID card to high-level administrators? YuHuw (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw, I'm one of the newest admins, only having been promoted in late August. There are certain positions which require editors to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization which runs this site. See Wikipedia:Access to nonpublic information. The position that you would most be interested in is the Wikipedia:CheckUser; they are the ones who determine whether you are a sockpuppet. The idea is that we don't want people running multiple accounts to stack the deck of "consensus" in their favor. I'm not all that familiar with how this system works. You want to be sure they don't find other registered accounts sharing the same IP and the same computer. I see you found where they were talking about you on a user talk page. I know nothing of this User:Kaz, who has not edited since they were blocked in October 2012. I suppose they think that every new guy who comes along that has a similar point of view must be Kaz back editing under a new account. I find all this kind of talk distasteful myself, I wish they would just argue different positions on the merits. Wbm1058 (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointers Wbm1058 I will look for a Wikipedia:CheckUser, I have nothing to hide from any admin. Just wish I wasn't such a noob here now. Much appreciated. YuHuw (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Really sorry to trouble you for advice again. I undid the user's deletion of the article you can see here [5] and asked him to discuss rather than revert to the redirect and instead of commenting he has accused me of "edit warring" [6]. I posted the same thing on his wall in response but can would like to know if I am allowed to remove his poster from my talk page? It makes me look like some sort of abusive user or something. Wish the User would just engage in the discussion page if he has issues rather than take such a belligerent approach. :( YuHuw (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@YuHuw: Familiarize yourself with the WP:BRD (Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle), and the Wikipedia:Consensus policy and Wikipedia:Be bold editing guideline which underlie it. As the newcomer on the scene, you made some "bold" edits, which is fine. They were reverted – which is also OK, but – accusations of being a "sockpuppet" of so-and-so long-ago blocked editor, as a rationale for such reversions... is not good in my book (per WP:Casting aspersions). The reverting editors should provide a substantial reason for their reversions. Be aware of the WP:3RR rule. You don't want to cross that "bright line". This is where, as I said you should initiate a meta-discussion on the talk page... actually, we already did that... sorry I will need to make a deeper dive into the content and the sources to really be any use when it comes to arguing the merits. Hope this helps. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hello, I understand I am required to post this here because I mentioned you in a dispute resolution discussion Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Karait. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Very sorry, still new to all this, apparently I had to move it here and notify you again There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I didn't think it would be a good idea for me to copy and paste the report with your comment so I left out your comment but if you would like to copy and paste it in to the correct section that would be helpful. here is a link to your comment to save you too much hassle [7]. Sorry about that and thanking you in advance for your patience. YuHuw (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, despite being one of the newer administrators, I'm kind of a greenhorn on these pages myself, as I did not realize you were at the wrong venue. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a followup note that the followup incident report to the one mentioned above is now archived in incident archive 913. wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

A sockpuppet investigation was opened on 07 February 2016 and closed on 26 March 2016 with a finding of "no compelling evidence" of sockpuppetry.

The accusing parties didn't take no for an answer, as they followed up on the closing admin's talk page, where the dispute continued until it was shut down on 17 May 2016.

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive921 § YuHuw's-endless disruptive edit war against the consensus:, opened 31 March 2016.

and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919 § Harassment getting worse, opened 4 April 2016.

Meanwhile yet another ANI was started on 14 May 2016; that one was closed on 31 May, and archived on 3 June.

Things have calmed down in this topic area since the end of May. Two of the involved editors have stopped, or paused, their editing. May not be a coincidence. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Pygments for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pygments is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pygments until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Pages with syntax highlighting errors is related to this. Still needs to be addressed. wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy first anniversary

Wishing Wbm1058 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! It's been a good year. wbm1058 (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Wbm1058 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Woodstop45 (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

— Congratulations!  — Amakuru (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment restoration at Talk:John McTiernan

I noticed your restoration of a comment from 23 January 2014‎ at Talk:John McTiernan. Since the IP address was virtually identical to the one that submitted the comment, and since the comment removal happened immediately after the comment was submitted (within 15 minutes), my impression is that the (refinement and) removal of the comment was by the same person who submitted it, and I think we should respect the apparent intent to withdraw the comment. So I think it would actually be better not to restore that comment. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that too, after the fact OK. wbm1058 (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation page edits

Hi!

Just wanted to say thanks for cleaning up Monzo and fixing my mistakes - it's the first (disambiguation) page I've created :). Will keep in mind the style regarding headings and page naming for the future.

Adam williams (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Adam williams: Thanks. There's a lot of guidelines to follow, and it takes a while to learn them all. I'm thankful too that others fixed my mistakes when I was getting started here. wbm1058 (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Universum Film AG

The discussion at Talk:Universum Film AG#Requested move 22 August 2016 has already been relisted once. There are no two people supporting any one option, so it might be closed as No Consensus. What do you think of SMcC's proposal? EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I just replied at that RM. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Baal Veer

Hi Wbm1058!

Hope you will be fine!

I want to say that the Anonymous User "139.190.240.68 (talk)" is continuously adding wrong information on Wiki Article about Children TV Show Baal Veer, while saying "I add some news / removed some wrong news about Baal Veer, and this user (I think) never had noticed on the provided reference links, as the user goes out of these links, and most of the user's edits on this article are WRONG.

Actually, I have provided the reference about the mentioned TV Show has completed 1000 Episodes, also it has started Season 2 from its Episode 901, but this user removes the edits done by me. As well as this user mostly updates the Episode number before its release.

Recently, I also noticed that the user is editing the Baal Veer#Cast section of the page, so I added the word "Citation needed".

Well, I just want to say that this article really requires an "Expert", but you also removed the line "Expert needed".

Hope you'll take action on it!

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Billoo2000 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

{{Expert needed}} is intended for requesting a subject-matter expert. As this is a children's television series, any child familiar with the series is potentially an "expert" on it, so I don't think the tag applies here. Mostly what is needed is to not add information to the article which cannot be referenced to reliable sources. Though I suppose citations to primary sources such as the series' website are usually acceptable. Just remove anything that's not correct or isn't cited to a proper source, or revert their removal of properly included information. I've already posted a note to their talk page. wbm1058 (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Wbm1058. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat puzzling new user...

Editing history seems somewhat puzzling. 1st edit was to slap a "hoax" template on an article, 2nd was to tag a user page as a sock puppet, then they moved on to Praise ClueBot, tag another article as a hoax, post to an admin's talk page about another editor's edits, blank an admin's test page with a Speedy deletion/G10 and so on. I'm mentioning this editor to you because, oddly enough, they have seemingly gone after 2 articles you also edited... Coincidence? Perhaps so... anyway, thought you should know. Shearonink (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I hope that editor isn't literally in a state of manic-high on crystal. Their choice of user name seems to belie their motivation for editing. Obviously they've been around the block a few times. What we share in common is that we both patrol for problems. I fixed the hatnote on HP Inc. because it was flagged for attention by Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review, and Template:Improve Olympic Sailing Article wasn't handling default usage well – and I just noticed that it could still use another syntax correction. Coding templates is complicated. But this editor has other concerns with those pages. When a big company spits itself in two, that creates an awkward situation for us in how we cover both the company history and the separate entities going forward. It takes a lot of time and work to handle these cases well.

I see that their most recent edit was on the talk page of a CheckUser and Oversighter. Perhaps they're in a better position to handle this, as I have neither of those privileges. wbm1058 (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

But I'm not sure whether blocking them is an effective solution. We just seem to be playing whack-a-mole. I wish there was a better way. wbm1058 (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh, I hear you about the whack-a-mole. They sure do seem to like to indulge in disruptive editing, slapping inappropriate delete tags where they don't belong, skirting on the edge of edit wars...and so much interest in blocked user William Pina's confirmed & suspected sockpuppets... Shearonink (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

And now they're blocked as a Pina sockpuppet... Shearonink (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Dab'g "Jr." on JR

   I don't especially care where the forum is, but would you please offer a rationale for yr edit Rdr'g Jr. to JR. On its face, the only logic i can see is that it makes it easier be sure no variants of casing and punctuation get missed, at the expense of pushing every user who, so to speak steps up to the friendly little "Jr." table into the chaos of the JR Max superstore. Perhaps Dabbing guidelines have been neglected, either by failure to take user experience into account in drafting the guidelines, or failure to offer enuf guidance to Dab editors about whose convenience is important in editing them.
--Jerzy•t 02:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jerzy: Yes, this one is a bit awkward. It's a bit odd that we have a dab for Sr the abbreviation and another one for the acronym SR. If you think that JR would benefit from a similar split to make a less chaotic page, then you can be bold as far as I'm concerned. As I said in my edit summary "make this consistent with Jr" which has spent most of its life since 2003 as a redirect to the "superstore." I'm a bit leery of making Junior (suffix) the primary topic as that might encourage some overlinking, and the fact it's a section and not a standalone article speaks to how encyclopedic the topic is. But if you want to make it primary I won't object as I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Just be consistent. Jr. and Jr should go to the same page, I think especially as there has been a big push on Wikipedia to remove the periods from page titles. As long as the hatnotes are truthful, I probably won't bother you. I patrol for dishonest hatnotes. wbm1058 (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Euclid's Division lemma

You have declined the speedy deletion of Euclid's Division lemma and of its talk page, with the edit summary "R3 criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move". Apparently, you did not read correctly the recent move history of this page, which is particularly complicated. In fact, this page has been created by this move. Because of the capitalization of "division", the page has almost immediately been moved by this edit. Then these moves have been reverted in many steps (see the history of Euclidean division), by several administrators. Euclid's Division lemma and its talk page have been forgotten by these reverts. The fact that some of these move reverts needed to delete Euclid's Division lemma for making place for moves has the consequence that the complete history is not visible on the history page (maybe you have access to it, as an administrator).

In summary, this page has not been initially created as a result of a move, but it has been created by a move to a misspelled (capitalization) misnomer (Euclid's division lemma is not a common name of the topic).

Thus, please, reconsider your decision, and speedy delete this redirect. D.Lazard (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

D.Lazard, Euclid's divsion lemma was legitimately deleted as an implausible misspelling.

Euclid's Division lemma differs from Euclid's division lemma and Euclid's Division Lemma only in capitalization.

As a casual reader, I have no idea which form is correct, i.e. whether this is a proper name or is partly a proper name. I know Euclid is the name of a mathematician, but whether a lemma was named after him, I don't know. So it doesn't seem to be an implausible miscapitalization. Now I see that we have an article Euclid's lemma, so we don't seem to make lemmas named after people proper names. I note that Euclid's lemma doesn't have a hatnote link to Euclidean division. I'm not sure whether Euclid had one lemma or four lemmas, though one of the four is the primary topic.

R3 says that "redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful".

"Page moves are excluded because of a history of improper deletions of these redirects. A move creates a redirect to ensure that any external links that point to Wikipedia remain valid. Should such links exist, deletion of these redirects will break them. Such redirects must be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion before deletion. However, redirects that were obviously made in error can be deleted as G6, technical deletions."

So this is recent enough that we don't need to be concerned with breaking external links.

16:53, 23 September 2016 D.Lazard moved page Euclid's division lemma to Euclid's Division lemma (Reverting a controversial move: "Euclidean division" is the common name of this topic)

I really don't understand your rationale for such a move, especially since only a few minutes later, you requested a technical move from that title here. So you're basically asking to revert your own undiscussed move. Why didn't you simply file a technical request to move Euclid's division lemma back?

Is your next step to request deletion of Euclid's division lemma and Euclid's Division Lemma as "implausible misnomers" as well? wbm1058 (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

AFD

Congrats for wasting my time. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: Nobody made you create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to Sleep. Why would you want to do that? If I'm reading you correctly, don't you want to redirect Back to Sleep to Safe to Sleep? It's OK with me if you just boldly do that. As a two-item disambiguation page, it may be converted into a redirect to the primary topic. Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Inna

Pleas fix my recent screw-up and move Inna (singer) back to Inna, per WP:COMMONNAME: it has a huge number of wikilinks. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see that there are still over 200 links left to disambiguate. It's easier to screw-up than it is to reverse screw-ups, as bots had already come along and changed several redirects intended for the singer to make them redirect to the (given name) article. You should be more cautious about initiating such moves, and more proactive in starting discussions. Changing a primary topic to an unrelated topic is fraught with trouble. Generally when editors cannot agree on what the primary topic is, that means that there is no primary topic. I see that this was previously at Inna (Romanian singer), so it may be prudent to disambiguate links as a precaution against more future ill-advised bold changes. wbm1058 (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, it looks clean now. I'll move it back. wbm1058 (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

GI tract

The usual section on Anatomy pages is headed Clinical significance. This section can often include anatomic variations for example. --Iztwoz (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Iztwoz: Can you point me to any discussions where this convention was established, or any guideline pages discussing this? My issue is this: "disease" is an everyday word that is well-understood by the general reading public. I'm not so sure about "clinical significance" – that strikes me as jargon that is only well understood by medical professionals. If you head the section with that term, then the first thing you should be doing in the lead sentence of that section is explaining what the section title means. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: WP:MEDMOS Sections Anatomy --Iztwoz (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Iztwoz, OK. Though I share some of the concerns expressed at the tail end of the discussion that formed these guidelines; see Guidelines mark 5. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Graduation in absentia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Graduation in absentia. Since you had some involvement with the Graduation in absentia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Misspelling or diacritics?

In regard to this revert, {{R from title without diacritics}} may not be used to tag redirects that are not the same title as their targets that have diacritics. Since the target both has no diacritical marks and is an entirely different title, "Occitan literature", the next best category is Redirects from misspellings using the rcat to show what it's a misspelling of. At least I originally thought so. It seems now that a better category would be Redirects from alternative spellings. It is important for you to realize that the diacritics rcat, which redirects to {{R to diacritics}}, cannot be used in this case. I shall make the adjustment, and thank you for helping me to correct my error!  Paine  ^u/c 03:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Multi-Tool Notepad listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Multi-Tool Notepad. Since you had some involvement with the Multi-Tool Notepad redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello

	Hello
	Thanks so much for making my page better! Is there anyway I can change the title to "Dolomite Bio" instead of "Dolomite bio" HannahJohnson1990 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done wbm1058 (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Wbm1058.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Chandra Levy revert

I take a dim view of editors who revert entire edits wholesale without explanation, i.e., "throwing the baby out with the bath water", as you did to my recent copy-editing of the Chandra Levy article. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 16:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hydrargyrum: Hey man, give me a break. I figured that out a minute or two later, and reverted my edit. You didn't notice the big red invalid month in the infobox? That's what I patrol for. wbm1058 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

And that's the kind of edit I see vandals making every day. wbm1058 (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Shamim Sarif

Hi, Just a note because I reverted your edit, along with a prior edit, back to a tagged version of the above article - the editor before you came to my attention through Stiki as they were removing maintenance tags without actually addressing the issues they pointed at. Have a good evening XyzSpaniel Talk Page 20:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. wbm1058 (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Year category

Hi Wbm1058. Your recent edit to Template:Year category doesn't doesn't appear to have worked properly. For example, Category:1984 currently displays "Articles and events specifically related to the year [[]]." Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for letting me know. I should have made more test cases. wbm1058 (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...

bot help
... you were recipient no. 1037 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Wbm1058. 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)

Nomination of Sunapee golden trout for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sunapee golden trout is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunapee golden trout until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Invisible orphan template

Per this edit of yours to template code, why is the orphan template sometimes hidden? I was very surprised when I made this edit and the template disappeared from view. SpinningSpark 22:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, maybe I should add a FAQ to my talk page? See User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 4 § Orphan tags no longer default display. Also read the Template:Orphan documentation, and let me know if you still have any questions after that. The community seems to have problems with any creative solution I come up with to implement compromises to resolve contentious debates. My "page cache" solution for lengthy lists of TV episodes (List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Survivor episodes) wasn't totally accepted, and my idea for resolving the "New York debate" isn't getting any traction either (m:2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Categories/Editing#Administrator- and Page mover-editable display titles, that make more than cosmetic changes to the title). I guess people would rather argue until either their jaw drops off or they get their way, rather than compromise. Sorry, I know you just asked an innocent question and just got more answer than you bargained for... /soapbox wbm1058 (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I had read the documentation page and realised it was a deliberate feature. What the documentation page does not say is what the purpose of the feature is. Perhaps you would get fewer inquiries if it did. SpinningSpark 00:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I added a new Rationale section to the Template:Orphan documentation. wbm1058 (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War of Independence: West Indies (Caribbean theater)

Template:Campaignbox American War of Independence: West Indies

Regarding your change of the protection settings on {{Campaignbox American War of Independence: West Indies}}, was there a reason that you chose not to consult me, as the protecting admin? Ultimately, I don't really care about the template and would have agreed with your suggestion, but (rightly or wrongly) there was a reason why I set the protection settings as I did and frankly I feel that common courtesy would have been for you to discuss it first. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Sorry about that, I just reverted my protection-change there. I was patrolling Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates for the first time, so was working in somewhat unfamiliar territory. The issue was actually that the template protection was transcluded to American Revolutionary War, causing a somewhat hard-to-track-down error. So the needed fix was to noinclude that (as described by the instructions on the category page). I probably should have reverted myself as soon as I realized the problem, as I understand your rationale now for giving it template- rather than admin- protection, even though it's not high-risk. So again, sorry for the slight, and please do sandwich pp templates on template pages inside noinclude tags as the error is tricky to track. Best, wbm1058 (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for your reply. Sorry for muffing the protection template. I guess we were both working in unfamiliar territory as I wasn't aware of that issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

G'day, hope you are well. Just letting you know that I have removed the protection from this template (and Template:Campaignbox Third Anglo-Maratha War), as it is probably no longer necessary. I have attempted to correct the messy history that developed as a result of its earlier move (which had been the catalyst in me protecting it in the first place). If you have any concerns, please let me know. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Caribbean theater of the American Revolutionary War

Hello, would you mind to tell me the rationale to create the redirect? Except for the above template it wasn't linked anywhere, and it's misleading as there isn't a proper place to point it. Best regards. Bertdrunk (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

These pages link to Caribbean theater of the American Revolutionary War.

I'm not sure if they all just transclude one of these templates but if that's not the correct title to link to then feel free to change it. My understanding is that it refers to naval battles fought in the Caribbean region, but I'm not responsible for creating any of this. I just stepped in when someone made changes that left red links behind. If the configuration of this topic area is changed then all the links need to be tended to properly so that nothing's broken. That's all I'm checking for.

I note that American Revolutionary War has an infobox Template:Campaignbox American War of Independence: West Indies, the title of which is American Revolutionary War: Caribbean theater and if I click on Caribbean theater that redirects you right back to American Revolutionary War which is a circular link, and that's a no-no. Are you trying to write the Caribbean theater out of the war, or what? I don't follow what the objective is here. wbm1058 (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Bertdrunk, I note that at 03:45, 29 September 2016‎ Yamakkusa moved page Caribbean theater of the American Revolutionary War to Action of 11 September 1779. Does the Action of 11 September 1779 constitute the entire "Caribbean theater"? The campaign box implies it was one of many. Then someone hacked up the former article so it now just covers one single battle? So you had a detailed article about the Caribbean theater that was entirely "summarized" and duplicated in it's parent article Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War, so now it redirects to the parent? Someone's sloppily made a quick and dirty mess here, and left it for others to clean up, apparently. wbm1058 (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and thx for the answer. Well, as they say down here, let's start by parts. When I saw that you had created the redirect, I pointed it to the ARW cause I'm unaware of any page dealing with the topic, if there's a topic at all. I thought of asking you about it, cause soon or later someone could be linking it, but let it be. So more soon than later a genius today added it to the ARW campaignbox, pointing it to itself because of the redirect, creating a nice circular template that don't go anywhere and providing the links you pointed out. I know that because somedays ago there was only one link left that I correct.

As far as I'm aware there was an article in the primordium, that got merged/melted/hacked into pieces over the years and ended disappearing sometime ago. I remember that there was a history somewhere but I can't find it anywhere, and the article you linked is from a battle in South Carolina. I was just wishing for a solution that don't require correcting wrong incoming links from time to time, but now that you're saying there's mischief around I don't know anymore. Bertdrunk (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, at 18:28, 1 December 2016 I restored page Caribbean theater of the American Revolutionary War (3 revisions restored: invalid rationale for deletion; created as the result of a page move) so I didn't create it; I restored a page which should not have been deleted. I was hoping someone else who works the topic area would notice and sort it out. I suppose I may need to do that if nobody else does soon. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The trouble started at the end of Sept. / beginning of October, so its gotten a little stale. wbm1058 (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bertdrunk:, FYI. I finally got around to sorting it out: fixing template links and doing fancy admin stuff. Splitting histories and merging them back where they belong. I think everything's cleaned up now, as best as possible. Trust you won't find any problems with it now. There is history at Caribbean theater of the American Revolutionary War and Talk:Caribbean theater of the American Revolutionary War discusses the problems with that, which explains why it was redirected to ARW. We'll just leave the history there for future editors to possibly improve upon. – wbm1058 (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Good, I think it's fine as it is now. Bertdrunk (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Curious for some feedback...

What would you name this template if it were published? (Also, please excuse the rough "/doc" page included; I'm still working out how to simplify it.) Steel1943 (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Interesting. Template:Navigation link? Not sure I like the idea of section links in navboxes; these links should be for significant topics and I'm not sure about encouraging more creeping "navigation-box clutter", though there may be exceptions where it makes sense. The second application, to help with link-cleanup, I need to see how that works, but potentially very helpful. - wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo award?

Could you please mark here in response to this question, where it is documented that there is a "Jimbo's prize for the oldest vandalism reversion of the week"? - 68.87.42.110 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it's just a rhetorical device. I'm not sure whether such a prize would actually be a good idea. wbm1058 (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Democratic organisation listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Democratic organisation. Since you had some involvement with the Democratic organisation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

None of those redirects should go to Sense

None of those redirects should go to Sense -- which is a problematic article, and I have already tagged for merging. As a user I got very confused by the bad Sense article and it took me a long time to find the information I was looking for, which is in Sensory system. So when you claim we need to be consistent, we should be consistent forward in the good direction, not backward in the bad direction. LaurentianShield (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Delayed followup

• My relevant edits 16:58–22:33, 30 December 2016
• Five senses edit edit summary: needs discussion; keep consistent with The five senses, The 5 senses, 5 senses, Five sense organs and 5 Senses. File:Five senses.jpg is prominently displayed on the Sense article
• Talk:Sensory nervous system#Merger proposal result was don't merge

Regarding Arsh Shah Dilbagi

I have been managing the page for a while but there are severe problems pertaining to Wiki policies. Kindly check if you can contribute to rectify the same otherwise the page will be deleted soon.

SteveDorf (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't take the time to be bothered with this. I see that you spammed several experienced editors' talk pages with the same request. wbm1058 (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)