User talk:wbm1058

For discussion of RMCD bot edits, see User talk:RMCD bot. For Merge bot edits, see User talk:Merge bot. For Bot1058 edits, see User talk:Bot1058.

For help with getting started creating bots, see User talk:wbm1058/Creating bots.

Disambiguation link notifications

As these are generated by a bot, and I occasionally check or patrol the status of these, I moved them to a special archive: /Disambiguation link notifications. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

My content creator's to-do list has items so old they've grown mold

...so I moved them to the /Content to-do items subpage. Someday maybe I'll get to these... Wbm1058 (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD

There are a lot of tumbleweeds rolling over at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers... the last edit added a {{backlog}} template. Now that I'm an administrator, I've decided to focus on clearing the Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge and Category:Possible cut-and-paste moves backlogs first. If Proposed mergers were busier, I'd make this a higher priority.

• Older discussions are at /Automating proposed mergers. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Mergers

Since you run MergeBot and RMCDBot, I was wondering, if it were possible to create an auto generated list like WP:RM has but for WP:PM, that links to the centralized discussion area, and lists the topics to be merged (from/to/with) ? As the current MergeBot already generates arrows indicated from/to/with, it would seem a modification of template:requested move/dated/multi would do to handle such an automated listing based on a standardized talk section header.

-- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

See § Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD above. Still on my back-burner. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding permalinks to block log entries for 3RR

Discussions are consolidated at /Adding permalinks to block log entries. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects

Deep gratitude

A big thank you for your help to clear Category:Cross-namespace redirects into its subcats. Really can't thank you enough! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. One final push to clear most of the rest, and then it will be time to take a break. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Break? Whassat?! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 05:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note that Category:Redirects to user namespace is significantly underpopulated. I was working off the list at User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects to further populate it, and worked my way through the A's. It's on my patrol list, so I may get to it eventually. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  I finally used AWB to populate Category:Redirects to user namespace; it now has over 900 members. My technique was to Make list from source Special page: All Redirects in namespace Wikipedia: – the category hasn't yet been fully populated for other namespaces. I think all of the cross-namespace redirect categories can and should eventually be populated by bots... AWB may be able to do that with a sufficiently sophisticated configuration. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  See HERE for the regex find & replace used for this. I manually monitored this and had to skip some that were already rcat templated; also may have missed some. wbm1058 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  Or the database query method used to generate User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects may be a more efficient method than my AWB special page walk-through. I need to figure out how to do that myself. @Paine Ellsworth: FYI. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Wbm1058! That's pretty cool stuff you're doing – and waay outside my full comprehension. Please keep up the great work!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  15:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Redirects from namespace 1 to namespace 0

SELECT concat( "*[[Talk:", p.page_title, "]] redirects to [[:", r.rd_title, "]]" )
FROM redirect r
INNER JOIN page p ON p.page_id = r.rd_from
WHERE p.page_namespace = 1
AND   r.rd_namespace = 0
ORDER by page_title;

• Query – User:Wbm1058/Talk-to-mainspace redirects – wbm1058 (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Generate automatic summary /* blah */ when I manually add a section heading

T22307: Consolidated discussions are at my subpage /Generate automatic summary /* blah */ when I manually add a section heading when editing. Hopefully solutions are on the way soon. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 2 §Marking separate discussions – wbm1058 (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Module documentation and test cases

There's really no point to having test cases for data modules, since there's no code to test. Also, doc pages that contain a #invoke of the module itself exist so that TemplateSandbox can be used to preview changes of the module. It's fine to add "real" documentation, but the #invoke must not be disabled or removed when doing so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Module:Syrian Civil War map is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded.

I edited Module:Syrian Civil War map/doc, and created Module:Syrian Civil War map/testcases.

Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War used to transclude {{Syrian Civil War detailed map}}, until substituted.

Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map loads Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map.

Template:Syrian Civil War map (created 21 February 2015‎) . . . Wbm1058 (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Syrian Civil War map/testcases

Module:Syrian Civil War map/testcases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy

See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 187 § How much should we trust Wikipedia? (again)

Your comments about the state of accuracy in the world on Jimbo's talk page are very interesting. I would like to explore this topic further. I'm particularly fond of your statement, "Society as a whole perhaps doesn't value accuracy as much as it should, and indeed Wikipedia editors should strive for a higher level of accuracy." Heck, I think some kind of variation on this should be our guiding principle. You've really nailed something here, and I think it's worth pursuing. One counterargument to pursuing accuracy, however, might attempt to appeal to the blind men and an elephant analogy. How would you respond to this? Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The best we can do is report the truth as best as we know it, and be open-minded to new information that can give us a better vision of the truth. As more "parts of the elephant" become known to us, the more accurate our "truth" becomes. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of DOS operating systems

I remember that you once intended to take your Timeline of DOS operating systems article to featured status, but did not take time to familiarize yourself with the process. Looking at that article, the only thing that is not compliant with the featured list criteria is the lead section. Basically, the only thing required to promote it to FL status would be to expand the lead section by adding an introduction to DOS operating systems. After that, you are good to go and can nominate it according to the instructions on WP:FLC. (Since this article is a list, the Good Article process does not apply.) Good luck! sst✈ 04:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I see, apparently there is no "good list" equivalent to Good Article, so I can skip that step and go straight to becoming a member of Category:Featured lists, where around a couple dozen featured timelines can be found. Thanks! As I haven't made any significant updates to that since February, I suppose I'm due to get back to it and finish it off soon. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Race Against the Machine

Hi wbm, I see you mention this book on your user page. Does the main thesis have implications for how Wikipedia works, and if so, on what time scale? - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A main thesis of the book is that accelerating technology improvements will reduce employment, and over time this will effect more higher-skilled occupations. We see this already with jobs coming back to the US from China... because they are replacing people with bots. Yes, a few more jobs for Americans who are skilled at bot development, operations and maintenance. But way fewer jobs than were displaced in China. Of course, at Wikipedia there are relatively few editors that work for money. We already have very intelligent bots such as ClueBot NG that help tremendously with tasks such as vandalism reversion. That one has over 4 million edits now! Bots also help with spelling corrections. There could be further enhancements to these tasks that could reduce the need for new page patrollers and spelling correctors. Time scale is dependent on volunteer contributions, or possible funding by the Wikimedia Foundation. wbm1058 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The future seems to be coming at us pretty fast. I try to stay informed-but-neutral. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Templates for deletion for deletion

Implement multiple parameters to prefix: operator on fulltext searches

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T159403

See also: Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 29 § Archive and search, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 152 § Search prefix:, and mw:Talk:Wikimedia Discovery § Search prefix:

See also: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 152 § Search prefix revisited – search with multiple prefixes?, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed § Discovery

{{Search deletion discussions}} and {{Search prefixes}} and all that authors other stuff should probably be deleted after emailing him. His {{Create parameter string}} is used but not well.

For now, I'd fix wp: Deletion process § Search all deletion discussions with a search link for each of the fullpagenames in wp:Deletion process § Step-by-step instructions (all discussion types).

I would. And I'd be glad for an invite to help you with any queries or discussions on this matter. — Cpiral§Cpiral 05:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 61 § is there a way to search several sections with one search? – June 10–17, 2009

And User talk:Rainman § modification to search several Wikipedian sections at one time – June 15–17, 2009

And User talk:Stmrlbs/Archive/001 § multiple prefixes – June 15–17, 2009

June 17, 2009 Help:Searching documentation update, alas documentation of this multiple-prefixes-separated-by-pipes feature was removed on October 11, 2009 when this was rewritten, to try to improve usability

"To search multiple sections of Wikipedia with different prefixes, enter the different prefixes with a pipe delimiter."

"This should be especially useful for archive searching in concert with inputbox or searchbox."

• MediaWiki search engine improved, 10 November 2008
  • en.wiki migrated to new search backend, June 2, 2009. Wikitech-l
• Initial import of rewritten Lucene-Search extension
  • History No commits between August 2007 and March 2010. So where is the June 2009 change to support this?

@Cpiral: so clearly prefix did at least briefly take pipes. Unfortunately, the volunteer developer of that, Rainman, isn't active any more either, and I haven't been able to locate his code changes that implemented that feature. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the history lesson. Interesting. Maybe useful.

Anyway, for now we have wp:deletion process#Search all deletion discussions. Hope that helps. — Cpiral§Cpiral 07:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Task to switch between new and old interface of "search for contributions"

This section is a followup to an earlier discussion I initiated at the village pump.

Hello. For notification, the task to switch between new and old interface of user contributions page was rejected. Izno suggested personal gadget/script or something. I would prefer that the switch between old and new be proposed at WP:village pump (proposals). Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

George, I wouldn't know how to write a script to change the interface, and I'm not keen on switching between two less-than-ideal interfaces. There should only need be one, fully-functional interface that's adequate for efficiently handling all use cases. What we have now is not such an interface, and we should focus on getting that one improved. I'm frustrated with the current means of interacting with the developers – there is a confusing array of different "phabricators" on this, I'm not keen on the phabricator editing interface, and I don't know whether I should add to an existing phab or start a new one, so I prefer using Village Pump where I can use Wikitext. As I need to use this interface to perform specific tasks, I may report issues I have with the current interface that make it more difficult to get the job done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... How about Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), where we can discuss the user contributions interface? --George Ho (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. But, per "defines a solution rather than a problem" I don't know if solutions developed in the idea lab would be welcomed by the developers. I'm not happy with the "handcuffs" placed on us with regard to modes of interaction with developers. Maybe if I just present problems to WP:VPT, and let them either tell me how to achieve my desired result, or make changes to the interface that allow me to achieve my desired result. wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No offense, but IMO I don't think WP:VPT is a place for general feedback on any software or something. VPT is used for technical difficulties, bugs, glitches, and other tech issues that need immediate attention (not sure whether I phrased it correctly). One complaint describing none of these, and they'll either advise you to write a personal script/gadget or write one for you as they did before. But you're welcome to choose any appropriate venue. I still think the "idea lab" is best bet. --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

At the top of WP:VPT there is a notice "Bug reports and feature requests should be made in Phabricator" but that's just redirecting us back to an interface I find less than ideal. I don't understand why they have such an aversion to Wikitext. I think that's easiest as all active editors are intimately familiar with it. Almost everything the developers in general try to pawn off as "easier" to use, I find to be more of a pain. But venue should be secondary to getting the issues raised, so if you want to start an idea lab thread, feel free. wbm1058 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, I just realized that you can go to meta:Tech and then post your concerns there. The developers changed the interface all over the wikis. --George Ho (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I see, meta:Tech#"Search for contributions" date range. So, let's let the latest bug fix settle in before we try using it again. That page seems like a good place for reporting issues with the Special:Contributions interface, as I hate to go to the trouble to submit a new bug report, only to find that one's already been submitted. wbm1058 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T172041

The major bug is fixed. George Ho (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Great! I complained about the new widget date-picking interface after futzing with it and not figuring out how to efficiently make it work to actually select a specific date range. I assumed that it was working as designed, and that I was just too dense to figure out the secret for making it work. So after this bug fix, which I see involves other developers than those designing the widgets (go figure, I don't exactly understand the bug report), I'm happy to report that the widget now works for me with minimal fuss. There's more than one way to skin this cat, so while this might not be my preferred way, I'm not going to fuss about it much if it works. wbm1058 (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T91148

 There is still an open task to consolidate the "date pickers".

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T183107

 @George Ho: FYI. After letting this settle in for several months, I'm still not satisfied with its behavior. I've entered a new Phabricator task. wbm1058 (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Awwww....

...please don't give up on us, yet. 😞 I know you're busy, and I'm not expecting you to devote a whole lot of time to this project, but your input is highly beneficial and I was hoping you would keep helping us work through some of the kinks when you can, especially regarding admin factors we know little to nothing about. What we're hoping to accomplish will focus primarily on clarification and consistency in our WP:Blocking policy with the ultimate goal being editor retention. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I've had some ideas about this on my back burner. Posting some relevant links here. wbm1058 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• m:Community health initiative/Measuring the effectiveness of blocks
• User:JamesR/AdminStats (show Blocks)
• Daily counts of blocks and unblocks
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit/Statistics (CheckUser and Oversight use)

Ha!! I forgot all about this, Wbm1058! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: It's still on my to-do list, as is replying to your email! Eventually... I keep a lot of burners going on my giant stove, alas some I have to keep down low for a long time. But I let other ppl cook my Thanksgiving dinner ;) wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat related to this, i.e. the area of community health and dealing with behavioral issues, is Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Something I haven't really paid much attention to.

There's a helpful search box at the top of that page. "Enter a username into this box to check if they have been sanctioned." e.g. Hmm. DUE, BALANCE, NPOV, RS talk. Followup. More followup. I'll try to help resolve this if I can. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh my. wbm1058 (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

English Heritage lists breaking transclusion limits

Scheduled monuments in Mendip

Thanks for your fixes on Scheduled monuments in Mendip. I don't quite understand the code of what you are doing but if it is about the number of reference templates breaking the maximum size, would your fix work on Grade II* listed buildings in South Somerset where the last few references don't display - possibly for the same reason?— Rod ^talk 08:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rod, yes, similar issues there, though InternetArchiveBot hasn't visited that page recently. There is a discussion about the solution to this at User talk:cyberpower678/Archive 60#English Heritage website changed the URL syntax for accessing its site database. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

New problem reported at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites#Recent template changes broke a few list-type articles, recommend splitting them to fix the problem – wbm1058 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: Your edit at Template:English Heritage listed building row

In regards to the edit you made at Special:Diff/974562485, the fact that the module output is transcluded by Template:English Heritage listed building row not only means that invoking the module directly matters, it actually means that it matters twice as much! Per Wikipedia:Template_limits#Nested_transclusions, any bytes produced by the module will be counted once if {{#invoke:delink|delink}} is invoked directly, they will be counted twice if {{delink}} is used to call {{#invoke:delink|delink}}, and they will be counted four times if {{English Heritage listed building row}} calls {{delink}} which calls {{#invoke:delink|delink}}. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Bill of rights page

Thank you for the changes you made to the hatnote on the Bill of rights article. I think it looks perfect! Rockstonetalk to me! 18:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

How about a Wikipedia Editors' Bill of Rights? wbm1058 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

With the current situation with Fram, that sounds like a great idea. . Rockstonetalk to me! 19:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Mass removal of cleanup tags

Articles needing cleanup

All articles

33,100

Hello. I noticed that you recently removed a large number of {{cleanup}} tags dating back over 10 years. As you noted, these tags were indeed stale, and didn't have reasons listed, but I would say that in most of those cases, the need for cleanup was completely obvious from a cursory glance at the rest of the article. As the blurb for the "Articles needing cleanup" category states: "If you're sure the article has been cleaned up, addressing any obvious flaws as well as any specific problems mentioned on the talk page, feel free to remove the tag. There's not much harm in leaving it on if you aren't certain what to do; the tag will alert someone else to come by later and check up on the article." I spend most of my time on wiki working through these articles trying to sort them out, and without those tags, the article are now "on the loose" in the wikipedia with no warning for readers of their poor quality or way of editors finding them to address their problems. Please bear in mind before deleting any more that editors do actually use these tags and categories. Cheers. Jdcooper (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jdcooper, OK. Here are my relevant 34 edits. I removed a total of 31 {{cleanup}} tags. I did notice that several had been proposed for deletion, and I suppose by removing the tags I'm keeping them from someone else noticing them and putting a PROD tag on the top. Not sure why anyone would want to spend much time to cleanup up a page that was proposed for deletion. I did make a few obvious fixes, but feel free to review them, and if you restore the template and add a reason to it, please also update the date to the current month, which will clear them out of the back end of the queue. I also noticed that in the talk archives the possibility of using a bot to remove these tags had been discussed. But, I'll move on for now to resume working on my more usual tasks, and maybe check back in on this later. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but the problem is articles like Dick Brooks (magician) where the creator has now removed the PROD tag and a horrible mess of an article is left untagged. I've gone through and added more specific tags to the ones with obvious problems, but I feel like dumping them in the July 2019 cohort (though that is what I've done) will just leave them unloved for even longer. The reason I poke about in this area of the encyclopaedia is specifically to find the long-term worst articles. But there are always plenty more repositories of such articles, obviously! Have a nice day. Jdcooper (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This backlog still seems to be growing faster than it's getting cleared. Category:Articles needing cleanup from December 2008, which is where I was working in July, was deleted in October 2019, and I just coincidentally found that Category:Articles needing cleanup from January 2009 was ready for deletion. So this has been getting cleared at a rate substantially slower than one per month. On to February 2009. wbm1058 (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in April 1917

Re your edits to remove the list of shipwrecks in April 1917 from the template limit exceeded category, probably the easiest way is by replacing {{flagcountry|UKGBI|civil}} with [[File:Civil Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg|22px]] [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom]]. This produces the same result visually. The UK civil flag is likely to be the most used in any shipwreck list at least until the 1950s, so changing the flag removes a large number of templates and guards against the list subsequently falling into the category again. AFAIK, no other shipwreck lists fall into the template limit exceeded category, but if you do come across any others, give me a shout and I'll fix the issue. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I don't know about that being the "easiest way". To unpack {{flagcountry}} I needed to make a series of three substitutions, which left behind a bunch of programming logic (#if and #ifeq statements) transcluded into the article (see my recent edits to List of shipwrecks in April 1917). It's not immediately clear whether making your suggested edit loses any of that embedded functionality, though it seems not. Whereas by simply bypassing a template shell that transcludes the output of a Lua module, I'm guaranteed not to lose any embedded functionality. I think the "best" solution would be to rewrite at least some of the template logic into a Lua module, and someday I'll get around to becoming more proficient with Lua so I can more readily do that.

But there's more than one way to get the job done. Feel free to revert my edits and solve the issue another way, if you feel that's better. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree that there's often more than one way to get the job done. As I understand it, there is a finite number of templates that can be used in an article. Not sure of the number but being computer code it's probably a power of 2 (1,024, 2,048, 4,096 etc). Changing the flags in the way I described does remover a larg number of templates from the article. I'll not revert your changes as they had the desired effect, but I feel that the article is probably still very near the template limit. Should it fall into the category again, then we'll change the flags. Mjroots (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: FYI. There are several technical limits. The limit this article hit was the Post-expand include size. Currently the article includes (transcludes) 2,007,669 bytes, and the limit is 2,097,152 bytes. So yes, it is still close to the limit. You can see this in Show preview, under "Parser profiling data" (help) – you may need to click on that if it isn't showing by default. wbm1058 (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Now 2,044,834 of 2,097,152 bytes – wbm1058 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The system is timing out with an error message when I try to see the diff of my edit, but I see that {{coord}} was transcluded 242 times; I believe I replaced those, e.g. {{coord|48|20|N|6|00|W}} with {{#invoke:Coordinates|coord|48|20|N|6|00|W}}. There is no difference in output: 48°20′N 6°00′W vs. 48°20′N 6°00′W – wbm1058 (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

And now it appears that four more shipwecks have been added to the list, transcluding {{coord}} rather than directly invoking the module. wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from incorrect disambiguation

Note to myself. On my back burner is to followup on the purpose for Category:Redirects from incorrect disambiguation. See the edit history of Assassin (movie). Also User talk:Anomie/linkclassifier#Some suggestions. Hopefully will follow up on this a few moons from now, after working through several higher-priority tasks. wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

LinkClassifier

I saw your complaints at User talk:IJBall#Please fix these links immediately, and I wanted to let you know that this should work for you:

mw.hook( 'LinkClassifier' ).add( function ( linkClassifier ) {
    // Delete the "incorrect-title" code
    delete linkClassifier.cats['incorrect-title'];

    // Add the "linked-misspellings" and "linked-miscapitalisations" codes, with appropriate categories.
    linkClassifier.cats['linked-misspellings'] = [
        'Category:Redirects from misspellings'
    ].sort();
    linkClassifier.cats['linked-miscapitalisations'] = [
        'Category:Redirects from miscapitalisations'
    ].sort();
} );
importScript('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js]]

Anomie⚔ 00:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe one day in P.R.

	Biked in 50 states!
	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqdkqABDETY Hoping one day you make it to P.R. - Jose Valiente (radio MC) and bike shop owner's son- can hook you up- just need a translator. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

List of GANs per nominator

Hi Wbm1058, I hope you are well. About this topic, did we get any further with this? I feel like it was a bit forgotten and archived, but I'd be very interested in continuing to find a full list of GANs by nominators. I'd love to help get something like this off the ground (I should be a little bit closer to the top 40 now, I've promoted another 30 or so since the discussion)! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Lee I lost momentum on this and let it drift to my back burners. I'll keep it on my to-do list and try to get back to it. Juggling a lot of balls, as usual, and as you can see from the sections above, new requests for my time keep coming in, making it harder to stay focused on more time-intensive projects. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Not an issue. I thought about it earlier, and I didn't know if anyone was actively looking at it or not. I've also been busy, so haven't had much time for much! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

GANs

Hi Wbm1058, you did some great work in listing GAs per user a while back. I wondered if you'd consider doing it again and/or doing it periodically? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski and The Rambling Man: – I'm running a new report now, using the last version of my PHP program from 26 July 2020. I started one last night, and it almost completed but died because the drive-by editor Sai5839448 put Category:Lists of good articles back into Category:Good articles, after I had previously removed it. A category is neither an article nor a Good Article. I removed the category and restarted my program from the beginning, and hopefully it will generate a report several hours from now. It will still have the inaccuracies I have yet to get around to addressing, but perhaps is "good enough" for your purposes. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Great work - it's certainly a start, and good for rough amounts. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Lee Vilenski and The Rambling Man: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles, as of 17 November 2020 – wbm1058 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is some great work! I was wondering why this credits me with 88, but I credit myself with 96, but then I realised it isn't including articles that went through GA and later became FAs. This seems like a sensible conclusion, but worth mentioning.

For me, the next point would be how we go from here, to a full list similar to user:GA bot/Stats lists reviews done by user. This would be with the view to have a bot maintain a full list similar to how Legobot does now. At least with a full list, we can identify the GAs with issue nominators, and come to a conclusion as to whom should be credited; and get a pseudo-definative list.

Once again though, fantastic work, I'm very happy to see this. I'll try my best to move up the order a bit! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by good article nominations

Hi! Remember our conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_24#List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles, as of 17 November 2020? I was wondering if any follow-up has happened after that? I see Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by good article nominations is still a red link. I recently wrote some code (using the Wikimedia Eventstreams API) to easily keep such lists up-to-date (by listening to additions/removals of {{good article}} from articles, so that there is no need to regenerate the whole thing on every run). So if you don't mind should I file a bot request to turn that link blue? Just wanted to make sure I haven't missed any further developments on this. – SD0001 (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@SD0001: no, I haven't done any more work on this since November. Go ahead and file your bot request. Maybe some time I'll try to improve my code to make the look-ups more efficient as you suggested so I can double-check your results. But I still have more tasks on my to-do list than time to do them all. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:SDZeroBot, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDZeroBot 11. Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by good article nominations looks nice! wbm1058 (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Template talk:Football squad player

Further information: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell § Other

Hi, in your opinion what's missing for the merge to go on? Is there anything that should be dealt with? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I took some time off from this task to wait for any possible response to my work so far, and to catch up on my usual work queues. I'm back on this now. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to revert you on the template, but I've started a discussion on the talk page on what form of country name to use. Thanks for all the work you've been doing on this though. Cheers, Number 57 22:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Template Parameters : Football squad player

I noticed your edit to User:Bamyers99/TemplateParametersTool. Wanted to let you know that the March parameter report is ready. There is a new link for the pos parameter called errors which takes you to the error list. --Bamyers99 (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bamyers99, your tool is really nice. I have a question: why isn't Cheng Fung on that list? |pos=DF,MF isn't one of the four valid valures for {{{pos}}}. wbm1058 (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

That page plus others were not displayed because of a bug. The bug has been fixed. --Bamyers99 (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! What a speedy fix it was too! You're the best! wbm1058 (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Flagicon

@Johnuniq: re: "the ultimate problem appears to be flagicon" – there have been multiple attempts to address this issue:

• Template talk:Flagicon/Archive 1#Template:FlagiconLua started (5 June 2013) – now named Template:Flags
  • "This template provides a clickable icon flag with options to define the size, the link and the label. Its usage is especially recommended in articles with many icon flags. This project is under development." – Development seems to have stalled soon after it started.
• Flagg – Is there a list of pages that are approaching the WP:PEIS limit that haven't converted over to the new module-based {{flagg}} system?
  • "{{Flagg}} (flag general) is a flag template with variable output format. Using Lua instead of the standard mechanism."

My work on this is on hold pending teaching myself more Lua and maybe JavaScript as well. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

How can I help with - Should the template display the table in one or two columns?

Python, Flask, CSS developer here. Unemployed and would love to get my hands dirty and gain some more experience. Would like to improve on the above, and learn more about JS and SQL. I also have an art background, so maybe illustration too. Tamccullough (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tamccullough: I see you were referred to me from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Regarding the SPLIT table used in the SQUAD sections of the Club manual of style. Our expertise doesn't overlap too much. I don't know any of Python, Flask, CSS, JS and SQL particularly well. I know Wikipedia template coding and PHP. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

See #Template talk:Football squad player above. wbm1058 (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

wbm1058 I'll look into this then - Wikipedia template coding - and see if I can be of any use at some point. Cheers! Tamccullough (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Log for Articles for creation?

...on potential improvements for WikiProject Articles for creation: What is missed? That's probably better answered by more-experienced AfCers, but one thing as an outsider admin I'd very much like is improved data on how drafts flow around the system. A log of all AfC submissions & reviews (accepts & declines); a log of individual reviewers' records (similar to the CSD log of NPPers); more clarity on the project's stats. ETA: I've just found Template:AFC statistics but it needs a proper historical log. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

As another "outsider admin", I'm interested in this too, and have the skills needed to create such a log. Adding this to my potential to-do list. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Wikimedia movement for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wikimedia movement, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi Wbm1058! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Cambridge Christian School

thanks on this note. I wasn't sure if it was the script or my error. Let me know if I should revert my manual tag of the new page. Happy to, I just wasn't sure how to best record the AfD where future editors would look. Star Mississippi 15:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Your manual placement of the template on the new page is what the script should have automatically done for you. Evad37 opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser#Old afd templates placed on talk pages of redirects. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the pointer to the discussion. Will follow it as I seem to be more active in closing AfDs and wasn't aware of that page. Star Mississippi 16:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Status update. Special:Contributions/Evad37. Most recent edit 22 January 2022. Just ten days after opening RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022. Any interface editors willing to help maintain this gadget? Sigh. I'd need to get around to taking a crash course in JavaScript, something I've had on my back-back-back-burner for a long time. Doing that would mean dropping other balls I carry, at least for a while. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Staffordshire Bull Terrier has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Merge bot

Hi Wbm1058, have you completed task 2 and no longer require +sysop to be set on this bot? — xaosflux ^Talk 09:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

My progress is documented at User talk:Merge bot/Task 2. While my most recent run was on 9 April 2021, this task is still on my to-do list and I expect to eventually get back to it. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

New pages patrol and the Curation Toolbar

Looking at NPP

I'm leaving two links here so that when you get time, you can look at possibly developing a BOT or a program that can provide the tools we need. WMF's development team created our curation tool but it took a long time. We are justifiably concerned about the backlog of unreviewed articles, and will probably never catch-up without some form of automation: NPP Feed, and ability to filter reviewed/unreviewed totals by category, date, etc. Atsme 💬 📧 13:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Naming languages

Hi. Thanks for your comment on Mammad Huseyn - it's an interesting quirk of the Page Curation Toolbar that it has a 'translate from other language tag' option but doesn't have a drop-down to specify the language. I'll go back and add it to pages in future. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining how that happened. See Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements#Expand language. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot added me to the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list @ 00:14, 2 September 2023.

Apparently this 16:14, 1 September 2023 edit of mine triggered that bot? – wbm1058 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And now I'm off that list, at least until the next time I edit one of the project's pages. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I've moved the messages received during my brief subscription to /New pages patrol newsletter. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Monitored issues

• Template parameters: Infobox settlement – wbm1058 (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• List of current NBA team rosters exceeds the node count limit – wbm1058 (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 78#Update on ONUS RFC  • Wikipedia:ONUS  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:ONUS – wbm1058 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 78#Rewording the contentious "onus" sentence – wbm1058 (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Cursor

This linked to the redirect. It should happen less often because of some changes ~two years ago, but my experience is that there is a chance of it linking to whatever the cursor is pointing at when I hit Return, rather than the first item in the list, which is usually what I want. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Typo backlog

I'm using WP:JCW/TYPO to find those. I don't usually bother flagging the correct forms since the typo forms are so seldom used. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's a list of WP AJ-tagged typos/incorrect names/mispellings. Some may be incorrectly tagged, like needing a {{R from database entry}} or {{R from miscaps}} instead. Many/most are from missing/stray dots, or wrong plurals, or missing/stray commas. Others from bad abbreviations. Some are ambiguous too, like J. Phys could be for either J Phys and J. Phys.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

Oops

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T12814

Didn't realize the talk page didn't move. The complexity of that one was a little higher than normal thanks to the user making preemptive moves that were not advisable. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: I also just moved Talk:California's 14th State Assembly district. You should assume that rm Closer will only handle the easy moves gracefully, and perform more complex moves manually. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I actually did these manually... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, sorry, Sammi, I saw that you posted your close of the discussion using rmCloser and assumed that tool was used to move the page as well (I haven't actually used that tool myself). So now I will assume that you were caught by the issue described at T12814. Does this sound right to you? (1) you filled out the page-move form and "Move associated talk page" was checked when you clicked the "Move page" button. (2) You then saw the warning message: The destination page already exists. Do you want to delete it to make way for the move? (Check the edit history.) (3) You check the "Yes, delete the page" box while keeping the "Move associated talk page" checked as well, then you clicked the "Move page" button a second time. This time the software reports back that the page was successfully moved. (4) The software does not report that the talk page was not deleted and moved, despite your having checked both boxes to "delete the page" and "Move associated talk page" (the software did not show you a "delete the associated talk page" box to check). You need to move the talk page separately now (or you could have WP:G6 deleted the talk page before the move if you were an administrator). You didn't do that because you had assumed that the software would move both pages in a single move operation, as it implied that it would.

If that's what happened, that's OK. I see that you're just a young page mover. I'm kind of an "administrator's administrator" in that I patrol for articles with talk page redirects and I found those pages populating the category. I frequently find pages moved by experienced administrators also populating that category, and having to constantly clean these moves up is wearing. So I just dug up that old low-priority "feature request" for this "enhancement" dating from 2007, reminding me that if you want anything done around here, 90% of the time ya gotta do it yourself! Feel proud that you're the "straw that broke my back" and motivate me to finally become a MediaWiki developer. I've been spending hours and hours over the past several months finishing up these incomplete page moves, and have come to realize that the only way I can relieve the project of that task is to spend hours and hours (more likely several months) figuring out how to fix that bug. And yes, it's a bug not a feature! Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I would have had no idea that this behavior was the issue. Most of the reason I have pagemover is to handle complex US radio station call sign moves (WP:NCBC is unlike nearly every other naming convention guideline on enwiki). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Another developer tried to fix this several years ago. I've installed MediaWiki 1.40 and Visual Studio Code on my desktop PC and will work on fixing this in the coming month(s). – wbm1058 (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk page syncing

On Special:Diff/1197910664, I realised early on that Talk pages doesn't automatically get deleted. Although I do check for talk pages, I missed this somehow. One well-deserved trout slap for myself. – robertsky (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Robertsky: right, see #Oops above. I should get back to working on that project. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Should I change the section title to "Opps I did it again"? 🤔😁

Wow, I was actually thinking that a userscript might be sufficient. Something detects if the talk page isn't moved (as that information is given on the move page after the move), and then pulls out the edit history and current content (truncated, or nested iframe/noscroll small div, if need be) of the talk page for admins to evaluate to see if the target talk page can be deleted for or a pageswap is required instead. But hey, if there are already codes pending in gerrit, why not. – robertsky (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations

For earlier related discussions, see /Linked misspellings and miscapitalizations, and alternatives.

It sounds like you haven't appreciated, or perhaps not noticed, the huge amount of work I've been taking on from this report for the last year or so. When I had JWB rights, I handled entries with hundreds of incoming links, probably fixing more than a million over-capped places, and a fair number of under-capped ones as well. And I identified, reported, and asked for a fix to the Visual editor UI problem that causes so many of the pipings through under-capitalized redirects. Of course, seeing how useful this report is for tracking things that ought to be addressed, I also added a whole lot of R from miscapitalion label to redirects that came from consensus moves to lowercase, so sometimes the list grew more than it shrunk. Since losing JWB, I've concentrated on the entries with more than 1 but fewer than a dozen incoming links, which is why you see a bit of an odd distribution in that neighborhood, and an ever-growing list of ones with just 1 incoming link. There's just a bit of overhead on each line I take on, so it's not efficient to work on the singles. And the big multiples will be more efficiently worked with JWB, if/when I get that back or someone else wants to help. Sometimes it becomes clear that the best resolution is to change the tag back to R from other capitalization. Anyway, glad to hear you're not anti-me or anti-lowercase. Back to it... Dicklyon (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed another raft of these today. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

By the way, if you see some where you think the R from miscapitalization tag is not quite right, feel free to change them. And if you let me know, I might work on trying to sort out which links really are wrongly capped and which are OK. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, note that I had gotten the report down from 26 kB (or a peak of 34 kB in July) to about 6 kB in September, in the leadup to my Sept. 15 JWB restriction. Since then, it's been pretty flat, as I work more on lots of little items. I did about 134,000 edits in 2023, mostly working on items on this report. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

wmb1058 and Dicklyon, Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations is either broken or the coding is incomplete. The past several months I've been uppercasing linked proper names of wars and revolutions, thousands of edits, and none were listed in this database. A few have some left (I visually scan and don't use a tool for finding the links or words on pages), such as French revolution which has about a dozen left to do, but some still have many hundreds. The next two incorrect casings I'm going to work on are Scientific revolution and Industrial revolution, neither of which is included in that database, and things such as the Age of enlightenment which only has a few dozen to uppercase. If you want to jump in please do so. Bottom line (literally), do either of you know how the database decides what to list or not to list? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helping, Randy Kryn. The trick is to edit the redirect change the {{R from other capitalisation}} to {{R from miscapitalisation}}. Maybe you can bring some balance to the area, if you and Dick can avoid fighting over what's Very Important and what's merely important. Wars and Revolutions in first-world countries tend to be Important, so they are capitalized, and we have many reliable sources backing that up. Whereas wars and revolutions in third–world hellholes, these unfortunately tend to be under-reported by the first-world press and are not considered to be as important. This can be a problem for Wikipedia, which endeavors for worldwide neutral coverage. I'd guess that the people living in those hellholes think their wars are Damn Important, the hell with what the first-world "mainstream press" thinks. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I've only been uppercasing what's already Wikipedia-uppercased in the wars, revolution, ages, etc. (been chipping away at what's left of Age of Enlightenment lowercasings since leaving the above message). Dick and I fight (Corn Pop was a bad dude)? Never, we politely disagree. If we fought we'd have more than one mutual ban. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

We fight politely, thank you, Randy. Most of the items marked R from miscapitalization are because someone decided, e.g. me after a move discussion, to mark them. I don't know why there are so many inappropriately lowercase redirects, but there are a ton, and mostly not marked. The trouble with their existence is that the visual editor provokes people to use them when linking, due to its stupid UI. So they show up in the report at a steady clip as that interface keeps tempting editors to pipe through them. There ought to be a way to automatically, via bot, fix all those that are just inappropriate lowercasings of proper names; that's a lot simpler than the other direction, deciding what needs to be capped more generally (e.g. the first letter of a descriptive-name link depending on whether it starts a sentence, heading, or list item vs. otherwise). Maybe we should put in a bot request; or you could easily learn to do them with JWB (with probably no chance of errors). We could maintain of whitelist of miscapitalized redirects to fix automatically, and/or define a class of things for a bot to figure out for itself. Let me know if you encounter complications that would make that harder. Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Feedback welcome

Was reading elsewhere and saw that you dislike my efforts at RfA improvement. I welcome any feedback you have about my efforts about how you could see to improve RfA as considering all points of view and thoughts is important to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: – Glad you asked. So I think the goal is to tone down the drama around RfA and to encourage more qualified editors to run. Towards that end:

• Take the ability to block extended-confirmed users out of the standard toolset. Kick that upstairs to a new committee – the English Wikipedia chapter of Universal Code of Conduct enforcement. This committee will either be appointed by the Arbitration Committee in similar fashion as check-users, or elected – by either an RfA-style vote or an Arbcom-style secure-poll vote. Voila. You've just moved most of the RfA drama out of that process to this new process for staffing the UCoC enforcement committee. Oh, and no more Wikipedia:Contentious topics enforcement by ordinary administrators. Only members of the new conduct-enforcement committee will be allowed to impose "discretionary sanctions".
• Make page-moving part of the toolset again. WP:Page mover rights have been a disaster for WP:Requested moves. I want to see more administrators closing requested moves, who have the tools to make technically optimal moves rather than swapping pages (the page-mover kludge). WP:Page mover rights should only be extended on a temporary basis, and expire after six months or a year, with no option for immediate renewal. Page movers should be considered to be on a track to becoming administrators. After working their page-mover "trial", their performance is evaluated to see whether they should be promoted to administrator. I'll be looking for editors who thoroughly clean up after their page moves, and who don't make bad moves that trigger errors which I then need to clean up.
• Add a new "vandal blocker" temporary right, which, similar to page-mover, functions as an administrator training ground. Vandal-blockers will, for six months or a year, have the ability to block IP and non-auto confirmed editors. At the end of their trial, their blocking activity may then be evaluated, with an eye towards promoting the good ones to administrator.
• Editors may serve either as a page-mover or a vandal-blocker, but not both at the same time. After an editor's page-mover term expires, they may opt to ask to be made a vandal-blocker, and vice-versa. Those who can't make the leap to administrator, for whatever reason, may perpetually flip between page-mover and vandal-blocker roles, for as long as they like, and are allowed to based on good performance.

— wbm1058 (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

What an interesting concept. Other than the somewhat out of scope idea idea of only having a "committee" that can enforce CT, I think this model is one that could change the tenor of conversation at RfA. I'm in general skeptical of devolving things further from the admin toolset - for the reasons you mention in Page Mover (though Page Mover is still granted to all admin) - but the prods you have put in place address them. Since some have decided we need major RfA reform, I hope you will find a way to put your proposals forward. It's some really fresh thinking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Right, I suppose it is up to the Arbitration Committee, not the community, to decide who is allowed to help the Committee with arbitration enforcement. I suppose that was just an afterthought, and, perhaps a hint. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

abbreviation and your revert

Why did you revert my edit? I just put an abbreviation and didn't claim that it's an improvement. There are many problematic edits here hope you also spend your time to correct or revert those edits which are "really" problematic. Egeymi (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This is my relevant edit. @Egeymi: belated reply. There is a note about this on my bot account's user page User:RMCD bot. One of its listed tasks:

• Notifying talk pages of WikiProjects which aren't subscribed to Article Alerts and whose talk pages transclude templates beginning {{WikiProject of moves of interest. (version 5.00)
  • See User:Scott/Notes/WikiProject template redirects. Perhaps the bot should also look for talk pages that transclude templates beginning {{WP .

In this particular case it's not an issue because Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines/Article alerts exists, but if that page did not exist, my bot would not post a notice of this requested move on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magazines page with the {{WP Magazines}} template on Talk:Shukan Shincho, whereas it would with the {{WikiProject Magazines}} template. Bots do not automatically follow redirects, and extra coding effort needs to be made to make that happen.

There, I've taken the time to explain my reason. Apparently your reason is nothing more than "because I like it that way", if I'm understanding you correctly. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"Finnster" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Finnster has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 13 § Finnster until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 13:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Axis capture of Tobruk

Thanks for tidying up after me there, Wbm1058. Just to clarify, when I originally moved the article back to that name, did its talk page not come with it automatically? ——Serial Number 54129 14:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: see #Oops above. I should get back to trying to tackle that. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah! I see. So I'll do it by hand next time to be sure. Thanks! ——Serial Number 54129 14:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi wbm1058 :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:European_settlers_in_New_Zealand#Requested_move_30_December_2023

I would prefer to avoid taking this to yet another move review. Instead, I was hoping you would be willing to strike the last sentence of your close, both because you are too involved in the discussion to make such an assessment, and because I don't see any basis in the discussion to say that there is a consensus for this "common ground", and your close doesn't explain why you see there to be such a consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would prefer to not see this move reviewed yet again too. I thought all the drama over this was done when I archived the topic. Regarding the persistent allegations that I'm somehow "involved" – I've never set foot in New Zealand, and was unfamiliar with the term "pakeha" before I came upon this RM. In my view, one must at least be aware of a topic in order to have "strong feelings" about it. I never said there was a consensus for "common ground". We have common ground because there is a lack of consensus for a hard tilt in one direction over another. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that by putting it in the close statement you give your opinion the weight of consensus. As an alternative, if you reword the close to make it clear that there is no consensus for the "common ground" statement and that it is merely your opinion? BilledMammal (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Again I'm not following what you're on about. Aren't all RM closes essentially the equivalent of judicial opinions, i.e. all my RM closes are my opinion of the consensus, or lack of it, and remedies for dealing with the lack of consensus if there is one. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

MGA

Just curious, but why did you undelete Multiple gender attraction? The deleted content is not the same as the redirect, so restoration doesn't really make sense. Primefac (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems similar enough to me. I'm confused about what the problem is, but then I'm also confused about why there are so many terms that seem to mean the same thing, but don't actually mean the same thing? wbm1058 (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a problem, really, just didn't see the point in restoring a (deleted) non-redirect when the new content is a redirect so was wondering if I missed a refund request or something. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The previous editor claimed that the term was "incorrect". I restored the history to show that there was, in past edits, some basis for claims that the term is actually a (correct) valid alternative. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991)

Hello, Wbm1058,

This article was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991). Why did you restore the article without any discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: My bad for not leaving an edit summary on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991). I just deleted Talk:Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991)/Archive 1, which is where I moved the old talk after the new talk Talk:Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991) was created. Did you read that before you deleted it? If not, where did you expect to find the discussion about this? I'm fine with deleting it again, as it seems that Washington Charter was trolling us, and a reasonable time limit for them to continue engaging at Talk:Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991) had expired. Their most recent active edit is again from 14 May 2019, now that they have six new deleted contributions. I was intending to subst: the new talk onto the end of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991) before I deleted it, but realize this was an unusual situation, and I'm not sure about the procedures for dealing with it. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

We also have three red links in hatnotes:

Timeline of United States inventions (after 1991), Timeline of United States inventions (before 1890), ‎Timeline of United States inventions (1890–1945)

Clearing out Category:Articles with hatnote templates targeting a nonexistent page doesn't seem to be anyone's priority.

But Timeline of United States inventions, I see you took care of that. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)