Jump to content

User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

White/blacklist

Hi Wbm1058 - don't worry too much about the beans - it is more that the specialists have techniques of tracking spammers back (like checkusers have techniques to see connections between accounts) that we don't always divulge (if they know what we look for, they know what to hide - I can give examples via email if you like). Outing is a bit of a case when x years ago a named account that carries the name of the owner of a domain, and now an IP that is now doing exactly the same - putting the name on the IP may be sensitive (CheckUsers will not divulge the IP an editor is working under, form of fishing). I tend to avoid to directly link the accounts, I tend to say 'this editor was here before', and you'll have to search them yourselves - you can believe they are there. Example is that someone is now spamming aaa.com, and we know that aaa.com is owned by bbb (domain-data, links in the template above) - if I say that this editor was here before, you might want to look for similar IPs (the range - though those I generally do point to directly), or for a user:bbb .. it is linking publicly available data, but ...

You took the long way to the old discussions (I agree, it is sometimes all we have) - for a long time we use the above tracking template (I would say 6-8 years already) which links nicely to some reports. Finding the back-links leads you quickly to all places where the template is. They are the 'tracked' and 'advanced' links in the Discussions-section in the template above. For mapsofworld.com it would lead you to the request where it was blacklisted, as well as some other attempts. It sometimes also nicely links up different domains of different situations which nonetheless are of the same owner. Also it shows other requests and other discussions where the tracking was added (other whitelist requests, or even outside the spam area). Do take note of other whitelist requests - funnily enough sometimes you get a whitelist request of an IP or newbie stating 'I tried to add my site here, and it was blocked, can it be whitelisted' .. 'my site?' .. so you are still trying to spam.

For specific links we tend to be more lenient (you've been very thorough with mapsofworld), though on some sites (depending on the type) we do often consider whether there are alternatives - like for examiner.com: every click on that article gives money to the writer of the article on examiner.com, if there are alternatives telling the same, then there is no need to sponsor that writer so he gets what was probably the reason why he wrote the article on examiner.com in stead of on any other website (plus, information on examiner.com is sometimes 'scraped', there are better sources). That people follow links from Wikipedia is just the reason that it pays to have your links here - people will visit your website.

If there are questions, don't hesitate to ask. We can also work on a bit of a guideline for some techniques as well, that would be good to make the learning curve a bit less steep, and to make people understand what they can provide to make the work easier (and possibly, faster). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a note: COIBot just reports from the LiWa3-feeds - some link additions follow typical 'spamming' patterns, and reports for those are saved. That does not mean that the additions are of a type that leads to blacklisting (often, they first get just reverted, or even ignored). Also, COIBot does not blacklist by itself (it does not have admin rights, it does have a function to add things to XLinkBot's revertlist, but also that is by command, not automatic), that is strictly done by 'real' editors - it is just saving the reports when either requested or when the additions of the links follows patterns (or are 'suspect' for other reasons). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Bot response test

If you are around, and you don't mind - could you please add the following line to User:COIBot/Poke:

(I may ask this a couple of times, until it works - I'll explain in a bit when it works). Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Mwagh, that was easy, it already worked (coibot does not save the example.xxx reports, but I saw it go through the whole procedure).
I added you to the access-list for that page. If you need a report for a link (a refresh, some extra data, the exact blacklisting rule, etc.) then you can add the plain domain (for 'http://www.example.org/index.htm' you use 'example.org'), wrapped in the LinkSummary-template onto that page, and COIBot should pick that up, and save that (COIBot works with a queue in which these reports do not have the highest priority, it may take some time).
Please note that the current database is recent (less than 2 weeks old, I had to restart on a new server). Older revisions of the reports may have used earlier databases (this is the third major restart ..), so that is sometimes worth checking to find older accounts.
You could now test it for real with that 'washoequiltshoppe.com' - the report (linked under Reports: .. 'COIBot' in the LinkSummary) should then be saved, and that should state which rule on which blacklist catches the link. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Large-screen television technology

I put the hatnote back the way it was. Apparently you discovered TV technology didn't redirect, and I didn't see this because it says "Redirected from Tv technology". It's a software quirk. The obvious solution is to create the redirect, but I didn't know this was needed. It was the journal I needed to link to because it was a reference. I just wanted to make clear the purpose of the hatnote.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I understand the purpose of the hatnote and see that you created the redirect. I still don't think it's necessary to say that "TV technology" redirects to there, as that should be obvious from the title and content of the article. However if you prefer that hatnote, it's OK. I just think a simple {{for}} template should be sufficient in this particular case. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A little help, please

I created this article from Spanish Wikipedia (don't worry, isn't hard), but my English isn't perfect as i wish, can you make some corrections, please?. Greetings. --Ravave (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ravave: – Sorry, I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to help much. You might try asking a member of Category:User es. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, Thanks and greetings. --Ravave (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Wbm1058, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Permalinks to diffs -- coming soon to a Wikipedia near you

Our wish is being granted. This is a feature you asked for in February 2013, and User:EEng requested the same thing in December:

The change can now be seen at https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/commit/ecc8114014ce16bd12b780e7ebbeaf10810b15b0#diff-2539a8201eaddcd9c316c6cd5773c850 and it was committed six days ago. The Gerrit entry was https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/63395/. Thanks to User:Arkanosis and User:Matma Rex for doing this work. Now edit summaries will be able to permanently link to an explanation for whatever was done. – EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: By the way, this will be announced in next week's Tech News, which are being sent to WP:VPT here (this is configurable if someone believes there's a better place, I'd have to look up how to do it). The feature itself will go live on 6 February 2014 per mw:MediaWiki 1.23/Roadmap. Matma Rex talk 20:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I see this is already working at mediawiki.org. For instance mw:Special:Diff/467927 gives a diff. It will be good to announce this at WP:VPT but WP:AN might also benefit from knowing about this feature. It is usable in block logs, for instance. You'll be able to cite a thread at ANI (in a block summary) without fear of the thread being archived and the link no longer working. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Nice! Thanks for letting me know. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Tragically, the Permalink special page is not taking me to sections any more. See a testing page for some examples. Even the permalinks I previously created in my log of blocks are no longer going to sections. This is puzzling. Special:Version shows we are still at the 1.23wmf11 (ae1e2f5) version of Mediawiki, so the software running enwiki has not recently had a version change. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response on my sandbox page. It may interest you to know that wmf12 has been released here and Special:Diff/12345 is working as of today. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sunapee trout listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sunapee trout. Since you had some involvement with the Sunapee trout redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Dude, thank you so much. That makes me feel so much better. At first, I felt like I was being attacked by Wikipedia when Rincewind42 was reverting tons of my edits, but now I see that I shouldn't give up. Thanks for the good advice and I'll keep trying from here! And I'll look at her page.

Although for the Teletubbies thing, I think I'm just going to ask an administrator about that, because two experienced editors are both giving me two different points of view. Rincewind42 seems to be implying that Teletubbies links are not okay at all, and Bkonrad implies with his edits that it is completely fine in disambiguation pages, so how does it sound to settle this once and for all with an administrator? MadisonGrundtvig (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it's worth, Rincewind42 is not an administrator, while Bkonrad is. I'd just let the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote play out some more to see what kind of consensus develops there. I started that discussion because I guessed that sooner or later you would run into someone who reverted that type of edit, and I was right. The guidelines on this aren't as clear as they could be, and consensus does change over time. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

You have a comment at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Discussion. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log/July 2006

Why did you tag Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log/July 2006 (and a few others like it) for G6? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Because I run user:Merge bot, which creates these, and I cannot delete them myself, because I am not an administrator, as user:Harej, who wrote that bot which I took over is (he deleted these files himself). I would be happy to take care of this mop-task myself if I had the privileges to do so (hint to potential nominators). Those files are outdated and stale. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. I've restored the CSD tags and clarified the reason. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The first WP:G6 reason given is "Deleting dated maintenance categories", that's why I just gave the reason "Deleting dated maintenance categoriespages." The bot never completely clears these, as it only writes the file when there is at least one item left. Thus, the last item(s) removed after the previous bot update must be manually cleared. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

trivial edits

Wondering why you're making trivial edits like {{IPAlink| → {{IPA link|. Isn't that considered mildly disruptive? It clutters up watch lists for no actual purpose. — kwami (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I finished those edits five days ago, are they just now showing up on watchlists? Although I honestly didn't think of that side effect, they were all marked as minor edits. Ordinarily I wouldn't make that edit just for the sake of it, but as I was also wanting to make null edits to those to clear false-positive transclusions of {{error}}s, I decided to kill two birds with one stone. Probably templates like that which are transcluded on so many pages shouldn't be renamed in the first place, it's a little like renaming a file in that no readers actually see the names. But those redirects do clutter up the list of transclusions for editors attempting to track down the source of a transclusion. Anyhow, it's water under the bridge now. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Samuel Eto&

Hi there. After replying to your discussion I tagged the page for speedy deletion and it was in fact erased almost immediately by NawlinWiki. So in case you didn't read my answer, here's a copy:

I've compared this original request to the existing article at Samuel Eto'o. Actually the IP wants some statistical table entries to be changed, namely "La Liga 2004-2005": 37||25||6||1||0||0||7||4||0||45||29||6 → 37||24||6||1||0||0||7||4||0||45||28||6 and "Barcelona Total": !145!!108!!26!!15!!3!!0!!41!!18!!9!!201!!129!!35 → !145!!108!!26!!15!!3!!0!!41!!18!!9!!201!!128!!35 (bold font by me). But as there are no references for the League entries at all, I'm not going to change it. I think we can have this page speedied. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that there would have been any harm in letting it stay up for a week. Now my time spent trying to help a new editor at User talk:218.103.122.51 was a waste. We didn't give them any chance to explain and perhaps provide a source supporting the change. I see you're an admin too, why didn't you just delete it yourself? This page was also useful in pointing out how we don't make it easy for editors to request protected edits of this sort. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't delete the page myself because I commented there and wanted to let it stay for at least a little bit in order to let you and Technical13 read my reasoning. Actually I didn't expect the page to be deleted so soon, but I generally expect the deleting administrator to check whether the content of a page merits a "keep". Apparently this was not the case here. As to your efforts with helping IP 218.103.122.51, I'm glad to see you're trying to help them but do you really need the original botched edit request for that? But if you think it would help I'm willing to temporarily restore the page and histmerge the content to Talk:Samuel Eto'o. De728631 (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
When I tag anything with a "speedy", I generally expect that my "speedy" request might be processed as soon as within the next minute, and would not be surprised if it was; any possible contradictory guidelines notwithstanding. And I admit that it annoys me a bit to see a "speedy" still sitting on a page a week later. If a tag is supposed to stay up for a week, then maybe it shouldn't be called speedy. It's all relative, I know, but a week is not my idea of "speedy". I actually needed to edit that talk page and then go to special:ComparePages to figure out (my best guess) what the editor was really requesting. I think the easiest way to honor that request, if found to be appropriate, would be to simply cut-paste the entire "sandbox". If I was an admin, I might have moved that page, without leaving behind a redirect, to someplace where such a page would not be speedily deleted. As I was suggesting to T-13, maybe he could find the help page explaining what to do in such situations. I'm not aware of any guidance here, so perhaps boldly implementing a solution is appropriate. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Edit requests#Requests for templates: Instead of pasting the code on the talk page, which can affect its readability, just place a link to the /sandbox along with the request and rationale. Except that this isn't a template. But that general approach does seem to me to be the easiest way to provide "a clear and specific description of the requested change". Wbm1058 (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Despite of their name, speedy deletions are rather seldomly processed within the next minute. After all at the least the creators of such pages shall be given the opportunity to contest the deletion. So while it shouldn't take a week for them to be processed, speedy deletion requests are automatically collected in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion which is then worked on by admins every now and then. And from my experiece it generally takes a few hours until such pages are eventually "speedily" deleted.
But back to the edit request. IMO the actual change was clearly not as complex as to merit the creation a of a whole sandbox page. I think also that we don't need to restore the full page history unless the IP can provide sources for these goal statistics. And by the way, T-13 is just fine with the deletion. But if you'd like to have the page restored and moved somewhere for reference and documentation I'm going to do that. De728631 (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Right, generally deletion requests sit for a while, but Murphy's law doesn't respect "generally". What the requester wanted wasn't as obvious to Technical13 as it was to you. Wikipedia:Pending changes level 1 protection would have let the new editor submit the request in a way that could more easily be understood. I agree that creation of a sandbox is more clunky, but any sandboxes created for this purpose could be speedily deleted by an administrator after deciding whether the edit request was reasonable or not. It's only worth restoring the full page history for reference and documentation if we want to pursue more editor feedback about the general issues involved; not for any further discussion of this specific request. Given that, if you want to restore it, I would suggest making it a subpage of Wikipedia talk:Edit requests. But for now I'm just going to keep the issue in the back of my head, until I see the problem happen more often. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NCR Corporation logo.gif

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Yes, I'm the editor who removed the image that I uploaded. See talk:NCR Corporation#NCR's logo has just changed. I don't know whether it is worth the effort to save historical logos as their color-scheme changes. In some articles I see sections for historical logos. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Biometals primary topic

So apparently Mega Man ZX isn't the primary topic for Biometals (a redirect that I didn't create, BTW). That's fine, but then what is the primary topic? IOW, what should people see when they type in "Biometals"? A disambig? Jinkinson talk to me 03:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The way things are now, there is no primary topic, so the disambiguation is "primary". But if you want to make Biometal (biology) primary, I could support that. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Minnesota Fats

Weird. I tried omitting the "current1" field and it was still turning up an error. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Plaza Francia (Altamira Square)

Thanks for the redirect. I didn't really know how to do it.--Zfigueroa (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:DOS on IBM PC compatibles at pushd and popd

Actually, FreeCOM and 4DOS do have these, so your reason is incorrect. Though I am not sure if these really count (especially the latter). It was not mentioned in the article either. (I am also unsure why this article should be in Wikipedia at all.) Keφr 16:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I reverted my edit. As to whether Wikipedia should document DOS commands at all, I think that ship has already sailed: List of DOS commands. This is done more in the sense of a reference manual than a textbook or how-to manual, which I think is OK. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Russian-language designations of territorial entities

([[User:DragonflySixtyseven]]:) Just wondering why you deleted Category:Russian-language designations of territorial entities which still has nine now red-linked members, and seems like a useful categorization to me. I see that the cat's creator was blocked, but certainly there was nothing controversial or problematic about this category. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Category deletions

Regardless of whether the page was useful, standard practice is to delete pages that were created while the creator was evading a ban.

If you feel that the page was useful enough, you're welcome to re-create it. DS (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

13:50, 16 May 2014 Ezhiki restored page Category:Russian-language designations of territorial entities (3 revisions restored: useful category deleted only because the creator has been banned)
Hmm. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

State Bar of Michigan

An article I started, which could probably benefit from your attention. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen: I just changed the section headers to use sentence case. Some might be tempted to place {{Prose}} and {{Third-party}} tags on it, but I won't. It's not a personal priority of mine to convert the lists to prose or locate independent sources about the Michigan Bar. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
As an aside, I used to have an office in the Lafayette Building, in which there was the State Bar on Michigan (Avenue)! Of course, both the building and the bar are no more. <{:>{)> Happy holidays.

State Bar of Michigan

I don' have a preference. I started the article and hoped that others would get on the Band wagon and work on it. As to tags, I am not fond of 'drive by tagging.' I like to fix things, not tag them. See my user page. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen: I hear you, that's why I didn't tag it. Sorry, I'm gonna pass on joining the bandwagon, as I've got too many other things on my plate. Like dealing with too many drive-by {{merge}} tags ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Huffpost article

Hi there! Thanks for sharing this. I too feel that there are valid concerns in this area. I think some editors have used the poor behaviour of purveyors of pseudoscience and religion as a justification for their own biased editing. Sadly, I don't see this situation resolving itself soon as the key to neutralising this issue is prolonged involvement of people without strong feelings on the content (who are less likely to edit such articles in the first place). SFB 19:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor whine about RMassist

The 'Discuss' feature of RMassist is a big step forward. What can we do about embedded equal signs in the move reason? Here I did all kinds of gymnastics so I could invoke the reason as "3=Blah blah" instead of just plain "Blah blah". The original problem was that 'Discuss' was creating a discussion page with a blank move reason. Thanks for all your work! EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston! The problem is that the editor had trouble entering the reason in the first place, per the bug documented in {{RMassist}}, specifiying 3= is needed when an equals sign is embedded in the reason. Here is where they fixed it; they hadn't entered any reason in their first edit. But where you see {{{3}}} there needed to be a second "Please put your reason for moving here." and then the editor would have needed to cut/paste in both places. This is getting to be too complicated... I think the solution is to deprecate the unnamed parameter in favor of reason=, just as I've already done in {{Requested move}}. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. But the language in {{Requested move}} still makes 'reason=' optional. Are you intending to fix that? And if someone continues to supply the reason as an unnamed parameter there should be an understandable warning message. Would there be some benefit to rewriting RMassist in Lua? While we are (possibly) making improvements I could always use a 'sig=no' feature if I'm fixing up someone else's entry. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll just handle it the same way in both templates, to avoid inconsistency, so anyone continuing to supply the unnamed parameter will be unaffected, if they don't also use an equals. Mainly just increase the visibility of reason= while downplaying mention of the unnamed alternative. I still need to spend some time learning Lua to convert it. If it had already been converted to Lua, I wouldn't have as easily been able to make the enhancement I just did. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hard to believe someone thinks our current template language is easier than Lua (though I know little about either). The current template language looks to me like random gibberish. It makes regexp look like a sensible well-structured language. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
No argument that the template language isn't extremely mind-bending... it can be that way even to me. I've just got more time invested in figuring it out. Sometime I'll spend more time looking at Lua. I also need to put more time into PHP and regex. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:  Done – OK, this could have been done sooner (sorry), but finally:

Without further ado, I give you ... Template:Delay subst editnotice!

After dealing with the confusion that I had with editing Template:RMassist/preload, I decided to create the above referenced template: {{Delay subst editnotice}}! In fact, I have already made it the editnotice that displays when editing Template:RMassist/preload. Feel free to change to wording of the template, or the template's documentation page. Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There's often more than one way to get a job done. Why didn't I think of that? Though it does show the spurious error message when you view the template (not big deal)... Wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
If that were a concern, I could fix it too, but I don't think it's worth it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Right, I meant to say not a big deal. I agree. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 14:28, Saturday, November 30, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

— Preceding unsigned comment added 00:53, 10 June 2014 with edit summary: "New Message (simulated automatically as part of The Wikipedia Adventure)"

So I just noticed that "New Message (simulated automatically as part of The Wikipedia Adventure)" signs itself with an non-substituted {{currentdate}}. I wonder why that is? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be a substitution of Wikipedia:TWA/Welcome. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I see:

@Ocaasi: Hi! I found your old appeal for help from the Village Pump. You need to edit Wikipedia:TWA/Welcome to use safesubst, which prevents premature substitution when you save the Wikipedia:TWA/Welcome page. Replace {{currentdate}} with <includeonly>{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}currentdate }}</includeonly>. And the same technique for BASEPAGENAME too. I can do it for you if you want to lower the protection level to template editor protection. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Would you double-check my work? Wikipedia:TWA/Welcome. I may just change the protection of all twa pages to template-editor. That wasn't a user group when we made the game! Cheers, Jake Ocaasi t | c 21:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

--

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together


That didn't work right. Try this: {{subst:Wikipedia:TWA/Welcome}}

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Wbm1058! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 12:27, Tuesday January 6, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Category:Wikipedia Adventurer

@Ocaasi: Yes, that worked! More changes I just noticed:

Thanks! I changed the category and template name. I thought that the automatic-api-message automatically substituted but I'll have to check that. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ocaasi: OK, I see why changing 'Wikipedia:TWA/Welcome' to 'subst:Wikipedia:TWA/Welcome' isn't the answer. That is passed as the second argument msgPage to the function sendMessage, which is using an api.get to read in the contents of that page—so we don't want to subst: that yet. Then the api.post is what actually appends the message to the user's talk page. This API stuff is what bots use, so I have a bit of familiarity with it from the bots I run. Note that the brace character "{" is part of the javascript syntax, so we need to escape that so the script knows that we really mean to use the character "{" and it's not part of the syntax. The backslash "\" is the escape character. So, can you try this edit to MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-twa1.js. Change this line:
'appendtext' : "\n" + text, → 'appendtext' : "\n\{\{subst:" + text + "\}\}",
Again, I'm not sure of this, but I think it's worth a try. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
No, on second thought, that won't work either; I think the result would look like this:

{{subst:==Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!==

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

--

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

}}

—maybe worth a try anyway though. But now I'm wondering if maybe my first guess should really work. Can api.get get the contents of a substituted page? That is the question. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ocaasi: Now I have another idea, hopefully this is a better one. I'm wondering what the point is of function sendMessage reading in the contents of Wikipedia:TWA/Welcome. One might want to do that in order to change the contents of that page, but in this case we just want to append the contents of that page to the user's talk page, verbatim (with substitution of course). So, why not do it this way:

'appendtext' : "\n" + text, → 'appendtext' : "\n\{\{subst:Wikipedia:TWA/Welcome\}\}",

Try that. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And now I think that the stuff between quotes doesn't need to be escaped. So:

'appendtext' : "\n" + text, → 'appendtext' : "\n{{subst:Wikipedia:TWA/Welcome}}",

Hopefully this does the trick. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. Upon further review, I saw that this would mess up the other two uses of that sendMessage function. See Wikipedia talk:TWA/Welcome for what I think is my final answer! Wbm1058 (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Episode list

Request at Wikipedia:Lua/To do

As requested by you, I converted both {{Episode list}} and {{Episode list/sublist}} to a module (Module:Episode list). No major problems arose, and the small ones that did were fixed. The only downside is that this isn't an ultimate fix. Whether they display or not, parameters are still part of the inclusion on the main list pages; however, everything is still done more efficiently. IIRC, Season 11 of the Simpsons (ignore the script error, it is completely unrelated) was ~30kB less inclusion. moluɐɯ 23:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Wbm1058 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened

You were recently 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/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Linwood

Hi.

Regarding this topic, You asked about the Linwood name. If you email me, or I can email you, I can tell you. (I added an email but I do not know how to send them).

Thanks.

BSL

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

List of current NFC team rosters

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of current NFC team rosters, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://partners.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1246940.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the bot was confused. Due to technical limits (the page was in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded), I moved List of current NFL team rosters to List of current AFC team rosters, then split half of that that to List of current NFC team rosters. The bot found a website that copied from Wikipedia. Wbm1058 (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

List of places in England with counterintuitive pronunciations: A–L

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of List of places in England with counterintuitive pronunciations: A–L, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: List of places in the United Kingdom and Ireland with counterintuitive pronunciations. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Magnifier (Windows)#Requested move 23 August 2014

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Magnifier (Windows)#Requested move 23 August 2014. Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Pithecanthropus erectus‎

Hi, the redirect "stood" for eight years for the same reason why many other obscure incorrect redirects do: No one searched for it, so no one discovered the mistake. Pithecanthropus erectus‎ is a binomial. The species erectus is now classified as Homo erectus. Therefore the genus name Pithecanthropus becomes a synonym of Homo, and P. erectus‎ becomes a synonym of H. erectus. It cannot be a synonym of "java man", because Java man is at best a subspecies of Homo erectus, H. e. erectus. A species cannot be a synonym of a subspecies. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Pithecanthropus erectus is a binomial." By that you mean Binomial nomenclature? The first part of the name identifies the genus to which the species belongs; the second part identifies the species within the genus. So, Pithecanthropus is the genus and erectus‎ is the species? Well, this is interesting. You have found yet another "obscure redirect" to correct? Wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
A binomial is a name consisting of a genus and a species name. Bi refers to two, and nomial refers to name. A genus name can only be a synonym of another genus name. A binomial can only be a synonym of another binomial, etc. That's just how it works. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I see that you've been participating at in an article review at Talk:Java Man/GA1. If there is a consensus there for your changes to these longstanding redirects, then I suppose it's OK by me. I'm not near being an expert in this area. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, you should be aware that there are many taxonomic synonyms that are left redirecting to the wrong articles due to reclassification, and many other such issues that are left for years. An example from today, Lepidotus. It has been a separate article since 2009, though it is just a disused spelling of Lepidotes. I just redirected it earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I just ran into this when patrolling Category:Invalid redirects. Java man said that Pithecanthropus erectus‎ redirected to it. So those disambiguation hatnotes need to be moved to the new destinations of the redirects. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: OK, I fixed the hatnotes to be consistent with the new redirect targets. I do find it curious that the new target of Pithecanthropus (Homo) doesn't mention the word (other than in the hatnote), whereas in the former target—Java Man—"Pithecanthropus" is repeated 25 times. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Dab moves-Explanation of reversions

Hi Wbm1058, about your moves of the Japanese disambiguation pages: my actions were to restore the disambiguation page to the stable title at the base name, as the standard practice for reversal of controversial moves. Unfortunately, many of the cities listed on these pages were moved without discussion last month, resulting in the large number of links. Hopefully many of these can be solved via redirects. However, the disambiguation pages are the stable titles, and there is no correct place to redirect the pages without them at the base names (the cities are definitely not the correct target of base name redirects). I'm sorry that this creates a lot of links (I know, I worked on DPL for a long time), but the default is to return to the stable titles and discuss from there. Dekimasuよ! 20:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, there is ongoing discussion of the undiscussed moves at Shizuoka, Shizuoka. Because the city pages sat at the plain titles for a month before reversion, I think many of the links you mentioned can be fixed by figuring out which are attached to redirects that turned into double redirects when the cities were moved to the plain titles. I would have done more of this myself, but there were more than a dozen pages involved. I guess it goes to show why mass, undiscussed moves that delete dab pages along the way create work for everyone. Dekimasuよ! 21:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm skeptical that any of these were "stable" with hundreds of pages linking to disambiguation. I responded at Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka#Requested move. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
They didn't have hundreds of pages linking to them, but they were stable. I don't know if someone went through and depiped links in the last month; I haven't done that much research. But you can check the histories and the page moves (where the mover didn't delete the dab entirely). For example, Chiba and Gifu were dab pages continuously with no moves since 2004. Dekimasuよ! 00:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
At the moment, it's looking to me like one of the main problems was Template:Metropolitan cities of Japan, which did have piping removed by the editor who moved the dabs. I have fixed a few links on that template, as have others. Dekimasuよ! 00:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dekimasu and Kirin13: OK, I found these at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig/Recently added. I would have assumed that your fixes should have removed them from that list. But this isn't something I regularly patrol, so I don't know the ins and outs of it. Chiba and Gifu look OK now. But there is an issue with Nagano. At lot of articles think that the Olympics were held there, and the few I checked are linking directly to that (it's not via a template). Were the Olympics held in the city or the prefecture? I wouldn't know the answer to that offhand. Oh, I see. The dab says (via indentation) they were held in Nagano, Nagano. So how come it's taken so long to fix those links to disambiguation? Wbm1058 (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking back at a stable version of Nagano (20 April 2014—it wasn't changed until it moved on 10 September 2014), observe the hatnote. It says:

"Nagano" redirects here. For other uses, see Nagano (disambiguation).

Now that's something that I do patrol for. Shortly after the article moved on Sept. 10 – actually on Sept. 25, I "fixed" the hatnote to support that move. This was flagged by Category:Invalid redirects. So, indeed the long-term stable position for Nagano, at least between April and September, was to redirect to Nagano, Nagano. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have replied on Nagano at User talk:Dekimasu#Nagano x3. Dekimasuよ! 01:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Small Wikipedia template categories

Category:Small Wikipedia template categories, 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) 18:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Momoko Tsugunaga

Hi,

You mentioned the page Momoko Tsugunaga in one of your posts at Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka#Discussion. There are so many idols like her in Japan and I personally am too old and too square to understand everything the kids are into these days. Your point about Chiba, Japan a good one though. At first glance, I assumed that to be Chiba (city), Japan, but as you say it's hard to tell. Interestingly, her "hometown" is simply given as Chiba-ken (千葉県) on her Japanese Wikipedia page, which is a little unusual because idols typically have lots male fans who know everything (from blood type to favorite "type" (of guy)) about their favorites. I googled her (in Japanese) and found one (fan)site for female idols which lists her hometown as Kashiwa, Chiba. Not sure if you needed to know any of that so just toss this in the trash if you want.

IMO, Momoko Tsugunaga does seem to be very poorly cited so maybe a {{BLP sources}} should be added. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia so I'm not totally clear about using templates like that. Do you think that would be acceptable in this case? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to tell you about that, since the sources are all in Japanese. I can't really evaluate them myself. I'd speculate that if she wants to preserve any privacy she might not want her fans to know too many details. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Understand. I was simply referring to the fact that none of the sources are being used to support any of her biographical information. They are just Amazon-like pages for DVD/book releases and chart positions. I'll post on the project page and see what they say. Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a common problem, unfortunately. See {{Not in citation given}} which is a template you can use if the sources don't confirm the facts as claimed. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

唐山 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ''唐山''. Since you had some involvement with the '唐山' redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've no problem with deleting that, it was a workaround I had to make to satisfy another editor who felt that Chinese characters are legitimate search terms in English Wikipedia and that such characters should not be italicized in hatnotes. Things seem happy as long as there's no redirect-hatnote on the Tangshan article. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Encouragement

Glad to see you're back in. Don't let the guidemakers get you down: each year there are some who will straight-up reject candidates just because they're not an admin, which I think is very short-sighted. The important thing is having more non-admins and female candidates run in the election—unfortunately the latter is still scarce this cycle, but it's encouraging that the former is more numerous than usual. Even if you don't get elected, I think having more non-admins run each year will eventually result in an ArbCom more representative of the community. Altamel (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for sorting out Mary Cholmondeley (heiress) with good grace. I'm afraid I assumed that it wasn't done as her name appeared on a "things to do" pile. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I found it because of the merge templates; I sometimes help out at WP:WikiProject Merge. Like to give prioity to biographical forks. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:RMtalk

Template:RMtalk has been nominated for merging with Template:Requested move. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding Template:RMassist/editintro

What is the purpose of Template:RMassist/editintro? From how it looks at the present time, I could only ascertain that the template would have use if the "Contested technical requests" section of WP:RMTR was moved over to its own page so that this template could be an editnotice for the page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

When there are requests at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, click on the "(discuss)" link, and that will open up an edit window with this edit intro at the top. This is what the admins such as Anthony and Ed do, but really any editor can contest a technical request this way, and bypass the step of moving it to the "Contested technical requests" section. I just haven't advertised this yet, as I considered this new funcionality to be in "beta". Feel free to try it yourself the next time you want to contest a technical request. You have to be on the subpage for this feature to work, it doesn't work on the main WP:RM page. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
See also Template talk:RMassist for more discussion of this nifty feature. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Arrowsmith School

If my move was not the correct way to do it, can you please rename it and do it the correct way? I already gave reasons for keeping the title Arrowsmith School and am open to further discussion. But for now can you keep it at Arrowsmith School? Thanks.--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to move "Arrowsmith School" back to "Arrowsmith Program" (like I did before) for reasons I explained on the talk page. I strongly disagree with Taeyebaar. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would appreciate help or advice. Thanks. Eaqq (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I just read what you wrote about how I didn't name change the article following procedure. I wasn't fully aware of what the procedure is supposed to look like or I would have done it the right way. I am new to editing Wikipedia and most of my edits are minor spelling fixes, not anything fancy. Eaqq (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Arrowsmith Program. Let's keep the discussion centralized there. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox template loop

Hi Wbm1058, Thanks for help re infobox; seems to be working. Thanks. Regards. Eagleash (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh

A convention for naming geographic locations in Bangladesh is proposed. You are invited to discuss. – nafSadh did say 01:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank You For The Help!

Wanted to stop by and personally thank you for helping me fix up the Boeing 777X page! With your help, we were able to make the page look more professional with what the future 777X will look like.

Thank you again. And have a great week! --PilotJaguar1996 (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor

Seeing as you performed the task last time, could you add another year to Template:Progress box? Unfortunately, Category:Articles lacking sources is quite long. Thanks! Altamel (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.  Done – Wbm1058 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

RMtalk / Requested move

I will leave it to you and Steel1943 to carry out the merge/deprecate plan. Let me know if there are any problems. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Good, I see that {{RMtalk}} was never fully updated to use the new RM Lua module. I'll do that now. This is a step-by-step process, feel free to check in with any questions or issues you might have along the way. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
@Steel1943: I'm about done with the changes. I tagged {{RMtalk}} as a {{Deprecated template}}, per "The {{Deprecated template}} template notifies users that a given template has been replaced by a different one. This is useful when usage is different (so a redirect won't work)" – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks good! By the way, what functions does {{RMtalk}} still have that {{Requested move}} doesn't have, just so I understand? Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem's not that the function isn't there, it's that you cannot pass a template parameter with a redirect. So while

{{subst:Requested move|Proposed new name|Reason for move.|talk=yes}}

is the same as

{{subst:RMtalk|Proposed new name|Reason for move.}}

the simple redirect equivalent

{{subst:Requested move|Proposed new name|Reason for move.}}

is not, because while talk=yes is the default for RMtalk (indeed that's its raison d'être), talk=no is the default for {{Requested move}}. Thus, redirecting would undo its entire purpose. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Right, which would have been the purpose behind updating all documentation to remove all references of {{RMtalk}}, which was the purpose behind the merge request I submitted. I hope I'm explaining this well; the purpose behind the merge discussion I started is similar to the discussion that resulted in {{Other uses-section}} becoming a redirect to {{About}}. (The discussion happened here, and since then, I've "wised-up" a bit and realized that redirecting (or merging) is better than deleting for reasons I previously did not understand.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Either way, I'm not going to press the matter. It may be something I revisit at a much later time, but that time is not now. Either way, it works! Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion venues

Hi. You do a lot of good work around Wikipedia but before you start criticising Technical 13 you need to learn a lot about Wikipedia discussion procedures yourself. I would be grateful if you would post your comments in appropriate places. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I realise it was in good faith but with this edit you just broke another golden rule of talk page etiquette. If you want people to take you seriously you need to be more careful. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, again I apologize. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move date format

Hello. It appears that you are someone who may be able to help with the comment I just posted at Template talk:Requested move#Bad date format. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wbm1058/Archive_2&oldid=1138275214"