User talk:WMSR/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Rivkid007, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jac16888^Talk 03:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits, however you should know that standard policy is not to replace foreign language articles with machine translations, they are of such poor quality that they are generally worse than if there was no article, a better solution is just to reduce an article to a few lines. Cheers--Jac16888^Talk 03:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you for the warm welcome. I appreciate it. Rivkid007 (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I noticed that you only included four summaries in your last 50 edits. Please, please, please use edit summaries. I know it's a little bit of extra effort, but it makes a huge difference in other editors being able to understand what's going on. Especially for those like me whose watchlists have grown to thousands of pages, consistent use of edit summaries makes it a lot easier to keep track of everything going on. Useddenim (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

RDT style

Italics is used for connecting lines, not closed stations. Useddenim (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there a protocol for closed stations? Surely they shouldn't be listed in the same manner as operational ones. WMSR (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Closed lines/stations/facilities are shown in a lighter color:  (BHF) vs.  (eBHF) for example. Useddenim (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

But no difference with regard to the text? It seems that there should be other ways to distinguish stations that are closed. WMSR (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Douglas branch (CTA)

Hello. I've tried to improve {{Douglas branch (CTA)}} but I don't know the area. I'm confused by multiple stations with similar names and don't want to get it wrong. Looking at the pink line on File:Chicago L diagram sb.svg, Roosevelt and Lawndale seem to link to stations not on this line. Maybe there were former stations with similar names but no article. All stations on the closed section (below 54th Yard) look suspect. In particular, Central probably isn't any of Central Station#United States. Please can you help? Thanks, Certes (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Also {{Lake Street Elevated (CTA)}}: Racine and Kostner link to disambiguation pages. I think Racine is Racine station (CTA Green Line) but no idea about Kostner. Certes (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

AWB permission

Just FYI, I’ve approved your request to be an AutoWikiBrowser user. NJA | talk 16:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Template editor granted

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

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

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

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

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

Useful links

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

Happy template editing! Primefac (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Highways in routemap templates

There is a project consensus against including highways in the vast majority of routemaps, as they add unnecessary clutter for a module that is intended to be compact and part of an infobox. Please do not add them to other routemaps without good justification. SounderBruce 01:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the heads up! Are there specific instances in which it is warranted? It seems that it mostly depends on the location, as many California routemaps prominently feature expressways and some even include all numbered routes. It seems like expressways serve as good geographical points of reference (the Beltway in DC comes to mind). Best, WMSR (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Route map conversion and Infobox Rail Line template in articles

Hi WMSR, On the articles that use the converted Routemap templates, the maps do not seem to render in the Infobox rail line template that uses them. Your route map conversion schedule should include a related usage conversion and not leave it to the article watchers. Example: Twin Cities 400. Thanks, Group29 (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out!! I fixed the affected templates. It seems it was limited to diagrams that were created using BS-table and formatted in a peculiar way. Best, WMSR (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Jct

Template:Infobox road/doc/country this page has links to every {{Infobox road}} subtemplate including road data modules used by {{Jct}}. Naturally, every country that is set up for Infobox road should also be set up for Jct. Hope this helps you on your journey. –Fredddie™ 04:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Template editor granted

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

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

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

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

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

Useful links

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

Happy template editing! Primefac (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Re:2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums

Hello! I'm responding to a message you left on my talk. Just to clarify, I did all the things that you named, I just didn't put it on the description. And it was accurate at the time of my edition, as I checked the source (the Politico's spreadsheet). Just to be clear. Cristóbalrguacl (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Cristóbalrguacl: Thanks for responding. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be possible. Either you updated only Tulsi Gabbard's polling data (I'm not sure exactly when the Des Moines Register poll came out), as most of the candidates gained a qualifying poll from that one, or you misread the spreadsheet. All I ask is that you double-check before updating that information. Best, WMSR (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

File links

Don't disable file links when the license requires attribution or a copy of the license. I've just reverted a number of your template edits for that reason. Generally, PD licensed files are the only ones that are safe to do that with. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Ah sorry my bad! I will go back through my edits to make sure they comply. Thanks for letting me know. WMSR (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Chetsford (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin Singleton (Australian settler)

@WMSR:

The links to Benjamin Singleton in WP:WikiProject Australian history/Exploration 1800-1899 are to a different Benjamin Singleton (not an Australian settler). Thus my edits to that and to WP:Requested articles/Biography/By profession were correct. Downsize43 (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Update. Looks like I hadn’t actually made the changes I planned in the Australian history article. Downsize43 (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixed the links in the history article.Downsize43 (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

noticeboard/Edit warring situation HEJ004A

Hello, I received a message from you where you accused me of Blanking an Administrators' noticeboard report about me, I think there is an error because I was making a report to a user who is eliminating my contributions just for bothering me, but what happened is that I sent the report 2 times accidentally and badly edited because I have not understood very well how to use the platform to report an edit warring, so what I did was erase everything I wrote in one of the duplicate reports thinking that I could delete it but apparently it was not So and I only won a warning that they can block me for no reason, apart from that there is no logic where you say Blanking an Administrators' noticeboard report about you (me), because what I tried to eliminate was a copy of a report I was making to another user, I was not self-report, I put this because you called me brazen and it is disrespectful without having seen how the situation is.

In the end I could not solve the main problem of the edit warring with the user who reported because in the end the report disappeared.

--Hejo004A (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Template editor granted (permanent)

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

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

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

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

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

Useful links

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

Happy template editing! RexxS (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

American politics discretionary alert

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

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Cease POV-pushing

(Personal attack removed) Opinion articles have never been banished from its entries, and their use is allowed as long as it is made clear that it represents an individual perspective and not the facts themselves. (Personal attack removed) Rafe87 (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rafe87: I'm quite confused by your message, and suggest that you may want to review WP:NPOV. We do not cite opinion as fact. We do describe the opinions of notable people, and properly cite those opinions. But what you proposed, an op-ed in a liberal magazine by a non-notable author which purports to predict how media will react to Sanders's poll standing, does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. My objections to some of the sources regarding Schultz are very clear: the only sources reporting a link between his views and his firing are not WP:RS, and correlating those two incidents without referencing RS is WP:SYNTH. If a reliable source stated that Schultz was dismissed from MSNBC because of his pro-Sanders views, I would unequivocally support such a statement's inclusion. That said, such a discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not here. I also strongly suggest striking your personal attacks against me. I am not here to push any kind of agenda or POV; I am here to help build an encyclopedia. --WMSR (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

National Review might not be a RS for facts, but it's a RS for National Reviews's own interviews. It's a notable media outlet, even if partisan, and unless you're arguing that it changed the transcript and doctored the audio of Schultz's interview with them, you have no excuses to keep the subject banned from the Bernie-media entry. You keep insisting on removing any references to this subject because you are (Personal attack removed) Rafe87 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a personal attack. You have been blocked before for making personal attacks, and you risk being blocked again by persisting.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Rafe87: You called my understanding of policy corrupted, perhapes intentionally mendacious and accused me of pushing a pro-corporate media POV, both of which are personal attacks. And given that Schultz worked at a media outlet owned by the Russian government at the time, I have trouble with any statements he made during his time there. I explained this all in the talk page: this case presents right-wing, non-RS publication interviewing somebody employed a Russian-owned non-RS publication and should be treated with skepticism. To take it at its word, given what we know, would be naïve at best. WMSR (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I seriously need to learn to simplify and summarize my comments like you can. Because of your inspiration, have a kitten!

SageSolomon (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Ani

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Multiple Issues. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: You have never reached out to me on my (or any) talk page before. If there is an issue with my editing, I am glad to discuss it here. --WMSR (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that I never reached out to you here. You sound a bit possessive over the AfD, just got me a bit worked up, and I was a bit frustrated. Plumber came 7 hours after they were called to fix the backflow in my tub, had to wait to take shower. Removed mentions of you, however kept the article related issues regarding users that dont understand wikipedia policy. I think you would agree with that statement considering that you once stated "WP:RELIST does not apply to this situation. Relisting and renominating are entirely different processes. WP:SNOWBALL does not apply either, as the last AfD was closed with no consensus. --WMSR (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC) ". Sorry about the ANI, can we still be good with each other?  :)

A news article stating that many pundits are feeling bernie is being covered a lot less, is stating the truth when the pundits say that. The main reason why I never stated keep was because I feel that Shashi does not have a standard ground of whether he supports or Opposes. As I stated above, I was not in the mood at that time to face a battle with him as well. I actually feel Sushi might have a WP:COI (I dont know why but I feel he works for DNC), but Idid not have the time too look for the proof. I feel that instead of AfD the article should go thru a renaming discussion, to be renaimed to "Media's view on Bernies Sanders coverage". At that point Pundits are part of the media, thus in reality there is nothing wrong with the article at that point.

Have to eat dinner now , its 10:34. I am no longer frustrated. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC) I had an edit conflict. Was stricking out.

@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: Thanks for striking your comments at ANI (though you have not yet done so on the thread I started). Also, just FYI, it's generally not a good idea to strike others' comments. Anyway, I hope your plumbing situation is under control!

ANI is not really the place for your other complaints, as they aren't related to editor behavior. There are several other noticeboards you can use, in addition to the article talk page and the AfD. ANI is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, which is not the case on the AfD.

There was a discussion on the talk page about the issue of attributed POV, and the issue I raised is that, while WP:BIASED states that Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject, this is only true when multiple points of view are expressed in an article. That is not the case on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders; every partisan source cited in this article is advocating the same POV.

I should also point out that I don't think there is any reason to believe that Sashi works for the DNC. But I am disappointed that you realized you did not have proof to go after them, but still went after me despite the same lack of evidence. Always assume good faith on the part of other editors. --WMSR (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

"A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro)" listed at Requested moves

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the requested move of A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and other Metro pages. Since you had some involvement with pages related to A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and others, you might want to participate in the discussion if you wish to do so. Lexlex (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

copyvio accusation

Hi. After the ANI you opened the day you opened the AFD for Media coverage of Bernie Sanders was closed I took ANI back off my watchlist. When you try to re-open an ANI you should really ping the person you're pursuing. On 28 January 2019 you accused me of copyright violations without evidence. Never have I seen you fix a copyvio on that page: could you tell me what you are referring to? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, sorry for not re-pinging you. I was referring to the illustration debacle. Using a copyrighted image outside of fair use criteria is a copyright violation. --WMSR (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah ok, so you are claiming that the fair use license I filled out... for an image that I did not upload... and had already been seen on wikipedia 3.5 million times was... (in your opinion) insufficient... based on a list of wikipedia volunteer written rules that are far more restrictive than actual fair use law... I'm not convinced the image still could not be used based on the policies as written, but chose not to argue with you about it. I would appreciate if you could dial the rhetoric back a bit. You can see the image it's about in the infobox here again if you want. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 04:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I understand that you filled out the rationale, but rules are still rules, whether or not you agree with them. The number of views of an image are also irrelevant, and filling out a rationale does not mean you can use a non-free image wherever or however you want. The image has a clear purpose in the Washington Post infobox. It does not in an article about Sanders. --WMSR (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong. Nowhere does it say in the page you cited that an image of WaPo coverage of X can not be used to illustrate a section about WaPo coverage of X. But all of that is immaterial. The problem is that you called it a copyright violation, which has nothing to do with en.wp rules (which I respected even if you think I didn't). In other words, you need to calm down and stop falsely accusing people of committing intellectual property crimes. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, fair use rules are copyright rules, and while clearly there is no specific rule for that specific situation, there is applicable policy. Per WP:NFCCP, Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. You can read more about this specific criterion at WP:NFC#CS. Nothing that I have said has been false or malicious. --WMSR (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as you know, the 3rd line of the page you link (WP:NFCC) says: Rationale: To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law.. Enough said on this subject. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: Is there something you are hoping to gain from this conversation? I am not sure what you want here. Regardless of whether the use of that image was a violation of copyright law, it was a clear violation of WP's fair use policy. --WMSR (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, sure, there's always something to gain. If you want to be nice you could go back and mark out the false accusationS at ANI, then. I think it's still sitting there in that complaint you made about "aspersions". If not, well then, I guess I'll have gained a better understanding of how you roll. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: Like I said before, nothing I have said is false. I have cited and relevant policy in my response which clearly shows that WP considers the addition of the image to be a copyvio, regardless of whether or not the U.S. government shares that view. Obviously, you are free to make your case on the appropriate page, but I will not retract a claim because you disagree with the merits of WP's copyright policy. --WMSR (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Problematic editing on article and its talk page

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

@WMSR:, deleting content [1] from reliable sources because you view their political alignment as conservative commentators is not allowed per policy.

Regarding your reverts [2] [3] of edits by C.J. Griffin [4] and by me [5]: None of your arguments in the talk page discussion have been supported by any policy or guideline. While I have been discussing every objection in detail [6] [7] [8] and continuously improve my contributions from preceding versions [9] and adapt them [10] to objections of other editors, you have not tried to fix the problem via repairing the article content you find problematic and you did not propose an alternative text version to the content you object against. Therefore your article edits and talk page comments seem to be creating a WP:STONEWALL against my bold editing in the article. Please don't do that. (the last part of this explanation is also at the talk page) Xenagoras (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Xenagoras, You are continuing to make baseless accusations against me, to which I object. Clearly, I am not trying to censor content. My point was that commentary from a non-notable conservative commentator does not belong in an encyclopedia article about a liberal presidential candidate. Not every removal needs to be replaced with different sources or content; sometimes, something just doesn't belong. I'm sorry if my undoing of your edits offended you, but that isn't the intent here. I implore you once again to assume good faith on my part before accusing me of things for which there is no evidence. --WMSR (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Please remove content that violates user conduct policies and guidelines

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

@WMSR:, I noticed that you made comments that didn't seem very civil. Please remove content that violates user conduct policies and guidelines. Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct. At this edit [11] please strike through the part "Please assume good faith on the part of other editors" and the part "casting aspersions here (or anywhere) will not help to improve the project in any meaningful way." And at that edit [12] please strike everything except the part "But as others have said here, the content you seek to include here is tenuously-sourced and is undue, even as an attributed POV. If you want to make a case for that content's inclusion, you are free to do so". Xenagoras (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Xenagoras, you cannot seriously make accusations against me on a talk page and then get upset when I address them. To then leave an AGF template on my talk page in response to my asking you to assume good faith on my part, is frankly ridiculous. --WMSR (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, I never made any accusation against you. You started to move the discussion away from focusing on content when you asked me to assume good faith and to not cast aspersions here: [13]. This also amounts to you not assuming the assumption of good faith by me. Xenagoras (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I never made any accusation against you. You just templated me twice! And no, asking someone to assume good faith is not a prima facie assumption of bad faith. Your comment directly above mine, which you linked, was filled with accusations against another editor (some of which you later withdrew) and had little to do with content. All I did was caution you against making such accusations. --WMSR (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, I need to clarify some things. When you wrote [14], you cannot seriously make accusations against me on a talk page and then get upset when I address them, you referred to the article talk page. When I answered [15] with I never made any accusation against you, I also refereed to the article talk page. Your conduct towards me at the article talk page [16] [17] where you asked me to assume good faith and to not cast aspersions and to not attack other editors (besides several other severe conduct issues) caused me to place the AGF template combined with a custom explanation of the problem here on your your user talk page (because conduct disputes should not be done on article talk pages.) Please read again the WP:AGF, WP:AOBF and WP:AAGF articles. Regarding my interaction with the other editor: I withdrew one of my references to policy violation because after you commented about it, I read the policy again and noticed I had overlooked in the definition of the policy that it requires repetition of the described behavior for the policy to be violated. The other user displayed the described behavior only one time, which is why I withdrew my claim of violation of that policy. I made an honest mistake in comprehending that policy and corrected myself [18] once I found my error. You accused me casting aspersions and of attacking other editors, which is not assuming the assumption of good faith by me. Xenagoras (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Adjacent stations/MARC/testcases

Module:Adjacent stations/MARC/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...} 20:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

1RR violation on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

Please self-revert while that opportunity is still available to you. El_C 01:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Since you failed to make self-reverting —or even responding to this notice— a priority, you have been blocked for 24 hours. El_C 01:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) El C, I just tried to, and I was unable. I appreciate the warning, but some time to finish the train ride home would have been appreciated. I was aware of the restriction on the article, and did not believe my edit constituted a revert. --WMSR (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, you chose to make another edit while this notice was unresolved — a self-revert, or failing that, an explanation of any kind, should have been your first edit. You should not have been making other edits while this remained outstanding. El_C 01:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record this was a revert of this previous version. And this was a revert of this previous version. El_C 01:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @El C: I checked my watchlist before I checked my messages when I got home, and I apologize for not seeing this and realizing the gravity of the situation. That said, I only realized that you had blocked me when I tried to self-revert. I am absolutely willing to self-revert, but you blocked me less than forty minutes after your warning. --WMSR (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, I am glad to self-revert, but as of now, I can't. --WMSR (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I could understand that, but I still don't understand why you failed to realize the second edit was a revert. That, in itself, is a cause for concern. El_C 02:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I know that 3RR (and by extension 1RR) includes partial reverts (which is what the second edit was), but have also been up since four in the morning and had to go through ANI today in which I was attacked by several editors, including the editor who made the edit I partially reverted. The other editor I reverted is now blocked. Not an excuse, I know, but again, I have no history of edit-warring, and I tried to self-revert less than 40 minutes after receiving a warning. --WMSR (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I know they're blocked — I'm the one who revoked their talk page access. But I'm still unclear about why you thought the edit (whichever one it was) did not count as a revert, partial or otherwise. El_C 02:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: It was a revert; I misspoke (mistyped?). I've had a heck of a day on- and off-wiki today and it's been exhausting. I messed up, I'm sorry, and I really don't believe that my actions warrant a block. --WMSR (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, providing one the opportunity to self-revert for 1RR violations may have become a convention, but it is nonetheless also a boon that is not required by policy. I can't help that you ignored your user talk page messages before continuing to edit. Now that the block has been applied, if you wish to see it lifted, I would need some pretty strong assurances that this isn't a mistake you're likely to repeat again. El_C 02:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I can guarantee in the strongest terms that it won't happen again. Any time anyone has ever called me out for making any kind mistake, I fix it. My edit history shows that. I am here in good faith, and I am here to follow the rules. People make mistakes, and I have always shown a willingness to fix mine. Again, I apologize for not seeing your message sooner, but I also want to make clear that your message did not go ignored. I jumped to take action as soon as I saw it, which was right after I made one edit on an article talk page on my watchlist. I understand your frustration, but I want to reassure you that I wasn't blowing off your warning; I simply hadn't seen it. --WMSR (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have unblocked you. But please note that further violations will result in far more severe sanctions. El_C 02:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Over and out. Thanks. --WMSR (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. You don't seem to understand what a personal attack is. Don't refactor my comment again. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Metro icons

I'm confused about your revert on {{LACMTA icon}}. I didn't modify the icons at all (or I didn't think I did). How can I fix the article titles without modifying the icons? Also, I believe it would be more civil to use the undo function for non-vandalism reverts. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Hbdragon88! Sorry for the confusion; I had to restore the old version because your changes were made over two edits. In no way did I mean to suggest that your edit was vandalism. The module calls the name of the line for the title of the image (they all follow the same format) so by changing it back to "Blue" instead of "A", for example, it called the image of the blue bullet instead of the one with an A. I don't quite have the technological know-how to change the module so that it calls the correct image but outputs text that differs from the title of the image, but since that module is also used for Template:rail-interchange, I think the icons are more important than the text for the time being.

A way around this would be to use Template:LACMTA icon for just the icons themselves, and use Template:lnl for line labels. That's what most other systems do (to the best of my knowledge). --WMSR (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:Flag of East Sister Independent States.svg

Hey there, I think you need to send this discussion to WP:FFD instead of WP:MFD. bibliomaniac15 21:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I deleted it for you and removed it from MFD. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 21:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

MNR icons

Hi, at {{Rail-interchange}} I saw you suggested some Metro-North icons? I think the icon images have been deleted, I can't view them? Can I help you restart this proposal and reach out to people to make this happen? Best, from a former Harlem line commuter, ɱ (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Sorry for the (extremely) late reply. I was just toying around with MNR icons in the sandbox a really long time ago; they were basically just {{Rail color box}} labels, so if there's a need for an icon somewhere, I would recommend using that template instead of {{Rail-interchange}}. --WMSR (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem, and alright, makes sense. ɱ (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk

You were late to the party, so I'm not responding in ANI. I don't really want to have a long discussion about it here, either, but I do want to remind you that he went to BetsyRMadison's talk page and insulted three editors. That's not a joke. That's not acceptable. Please don't enable their behavior by providing excuses. Goodbye. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@FollowTheSources: Thanks for the message! I see that I commented just as you closed the discussion, but I stand by my belief that you are both acting in good faith. In fact, the last time InedibleHulk was at ANI, it was because I dragged him there. He certainly has a dramatic way of expressing himself, and should probably be clearer about what he means to say, but he is engaging in friendly banter and really means you no harm. You can both remedy this situation by focusing on content, even if it seems as though the other isn't. --WMSR (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I will definitely focus on content, but if I see them insulting editors, I will focus on that, as well.

It is clear to me that they knew that "saboteurs" is an insult, not just a "dramatic way of expressing himself", and they had multiple opportunities to walk it back before I effectively forced their hand. So if this reoccurs, I will have not hesitate in requesting a block. This project is not well served by such personal attacks. FollowTheSources (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop calling me "them", I'm a guy. And yeah, WMSR "enabling" me is a hoot. Nobody ever disabled me harder! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@FollowTheSources: The teacher in me is coming out, so please bear with me. I understand that you feel insulted. That's perfectly valid and legitimate. Bear in mind that when you say something on the web, the reader doesn't also hear the tone of how you would've said it in person. This is true for both of you, and it's easy to see Hulk making a sarcastic comment and then interpreting your reaction as an attack, similar to how you interpreted his comment as an attack. There was never a need to "force his hand", and there was never a need to call you a saboteur. Both of you can be simultaneously right, wrong, and silly in this situation. Just keep some perspective. InedibleHulk, glad I could provide a hoot for ya. --WMSR (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, you wrecking me still isn't funny, W. Just no longer tragic. Funny choice of words from FTS (in an unintentional and good way), that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Sorry to salt a wound. I do hope you know that I harbor no ill will towards you, though I understand that those words may mean little coming from me. I never meant to bully you and am truly sorry if that's how I came off; you're a valuable contributor and I'm glad you stuck around. It's important to remember that we're all humans behind these computers and we all want the best for this project. --WMSR (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries. You went your way, I went mine and when the dust settled, our names looked the same (at least in the end). But we both hopefully learned not everybody here is human, and those poor bots shouldn't be given even more guff on top of what they're already designed to handle. It's inhumane, always was, I was just too young and pigheaded to realize, thanks again! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

And no, you didn't come across as a bully. You came across as a well-organized bookish sort who, through some unknown twists of fate, came to release a horde of hounds with bees in their mouths, and when they barked, they shot bees at me. Bit like a wizard, but without a beard, maybe atop a pegasus. You know..."nerdy but cool". Forgive me if I presume a bit off, but there definitely were explicit metaphorical bees in my bonnet and britches, and I sure didn't invite them. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ref! El_C 07:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

El_C, I'm not sure where you came from, but I wholeheartedly support this contribution to the discourse. --WMSR (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: You're not terribly far off. It is true that I don't have a beard. In fact, I can't even grow one! I tried in the early days of quarantine but have found it to be downright impossible. While I am decidedly nerdy, the "and cool" part is almost laughable. I also only have one dog; she's 14 and afraid of rain. Not thunder. Rain. I do feel your pain about the bees. I once accidentally stepped on a wasp nest while sandal-clad and the results were... exactly what one would expect. --WMSR (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

One of my dogs is like that, too. Scared of rain, I mean, terrified of thunder. Maybe coincidentally, maybe not, she's also the young lady with the shortest hairs on her chin. The other two are just afraid of the same natural phenomena their isolated beardo daddy is, namely tailypo, wendigo and blue LEDs. Nothing eerier than waking up to something glowing at the foot of the bed, if you ask me. I have a friendly colony of yellowjackets in my yard, not exactly snugglers or useful, but they surround me without issue lately, part of me thinks they remember what I didn't do last summer. I hope to wear a beard of them by the age of 70, unless "murder hornets" intervene. Or a six-week heatwave. Or forty days of rain. Or you know, whatever will bee. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

To WMSR - Hulk came to my talk page and not only personally attack me and my integrity, but Hulk also accused me of "conspiring" to "make-up" stories with bias against Tara Reade. And I'd like to know why you think it is ok for Hulk to do that to me, accuse me of those horrible things and the only admonishment you give to Hulk is a grin, a smile, and an attaboy.
Will I get a smile, a grin, and attaboy if I start talking in the "artful (?) manner" (your words) as Hulk and if I go to editor's personal talk pages and attack them and accuse them of conspiring to make-up stories?
If I go to other editors pages and attack their integrity using Hulk's "artful (?)" vocabulary, will it be written off as me just "making a sarcastic comment?" (your words). And how do you know Hulk was just "making a sarcastic comment?" Are you a mind-reader? Can you read Hulk's intent when he personally attacks people, their integrity, and accuses them of conspiring to make-up stories?
I'm just trying figure if WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY rules apply to all editors - or - if they just apply to editors who are not as "artful (?) " and "sarcastic" as Hulk.
For the record, I find Hulk's assaults against me and my character malicious, intentional, and out-of-bounds. I find no humor and no sarcasm in Hulk's personal attacks. None. And I also am very disappointed that some editors have to follow WP:NPA rules, while others, who willingly and with malice go to other editor's pages and can personally attack them because of ... "artful (?)" and "sarcastic" language.
And since you're on this page apologizing to Hulk for something you did to Hulk, are you sure you're even the right person who should be making any call on Hulk breaching WP:NPA BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"Conspiring" and "make-up" are your words, not mine. I said your highly-visible group's organized crime was "not a conspiracy". I also said you three "make up" (verb) stories about attacks from the relative middle, which two of you proved in immediate response. Not accusing any or all of you of "horrible things", asking if you're self-aware of your regular mundane politically-minded disruption. I won't ask again, but reiterate the attacks are in your head, not my words. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

To WMSR and Schazjmd - within the last half-hour, Hulk has come to my talk page to continue with his harassment and personal attacks against me. here [19] here [20] here [21] here [22] here [23] here [24] Thanks for admonishing him with a grin, a smile, and an attaboy, it really worked wonders and was so helpful in encouraging Hulk to keep breaching WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY and to continue his personal attacks against me & against my integrity on my talk page. Thanks! BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You're talking shit about me in so many places, it's hard to know where to begin clarifying. Sometimes you're directly pinging me and questioning me. If you'd like me to shut up, simply and kindly shut up. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hulk's comment (above) is disingenuous. The record will show that the last time I pinged Hulk was at timestamp 21:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC) when I insulted Hulk for personally attacking me. Lucky for me, at timestamp 00:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Schazjmd advised me to "comment on the content, not the editor." Which is what I have been doing ever since. I have not been pinging Hulk and not asking Hulk questions. Hulk's comment is simply not truthful. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It finally clicked what you (probably?) meant. To be clear, those are abbreviated "were"s, not "are" s. I agree you stopped two hundred minutes before I replied. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What's going on here, @InedibleHulk:? Did I go too easy on you in the ANI? I thought you agreed to drop the personal attacks, and yet here you are.

Even if you feel like you're being baited, you retain the option to just walk away. I suggest that you use it. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest your threats are softer than a Care Bear's toilet paper, and smell almost as good, thanks for sharing! Anyway, I have no reason to lie about what I do here. The backstage 'atta boy archived at User talk:Levivich/Archive 3 is the only one I recall giving or receiving, and it makes this crap look like the dust left on a Care Bear's Q-tip. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This conversation cannot continue on my talk page if it will be used to bash other editors. My talk page is for bashing me only! I am glad to continue to talk this out, but only if we can do so without making accusations. Use I-messages. Be kind. --WMSR (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

To WMSR - Is your (11:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)) comment in response to my first message to you here, [25] or to my second message to you here, [26]? ~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That second message used to be mine, but you can have it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am bothered by the insults from InedibleHulk, and more so by the fact that they seem incorrigible. How about you? FollowTheSources (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I guess we're doing this. @FollowTheSources: Which statements from Hulk do you find to be insults? Why? The statement about incorrigibility is not going to help here, by the way; if I'm going to be a mediator, I'm not going to take sides. --WMSR (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, the incorrigibility conclusion comes from the fact that they were taken to ANI, redacted their insults, but did not appear to have learned anything from this process. To wit, here are some examples of things they said that are sarcastic, biting, and hostile. They are definitely not civil, although whether they rise to the level of personal attack varies with the example. All of these are from above:

"your highly-visible group's organized crime"

"you three "make up" (verb) stories about attacks from the relative middle"

"your regular mundane politically-minded disruption"

"your threats are softer than a Care Bear's toilet paper, and smell almost as good"

I realize that tone of voice is lost in the medium, so it would be too easy to assume the worst, but I struggle to find interpretations of these phrases that do not reek of incivility. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Which of those examples is the most personal and least personal, by your eye? They all seem like assessments of content and tactics to me. "Negative", sure, but the stuff in question is what it is, regardless of who made it that way. I'll stop using a word you dislike around you if you'll stop calling me "they". Sound fair? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about your background, but where I come from, calling someone an "organized criminal" is not something you do casually. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

FollowTheSources, I understand that you feel that way, but if this is going to work, you can't present your feelings as fact. It's okay to have feelings, and it's okay to have them hurt over the internet. We are all humans. Instead of calling Hulk's statements "sarcastic, biting, and hostile", explain to Hulk the way you feel as a result. InedibleHulk, I would appreciate if you would tone down the sarcasm temporarily so that we can make some progress. Even though it's how you are used to communicating, you both are on my talk page to work this out without sanctions (as I am not an admin and cannot issue any). I can't imagine either of you want to increase the bad blood here, but you'll have to cooperate here if there is to be any hope of cooperating as editors on articles. Can we agree to the ground rules of using I-messages and speaking sincerely before we continue? --WMSR (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

To WMSR - Are you going to address any of the concerns that I asked you about (above)? As it is right now, I have documented Hulk using my personal talk page to personally attack me WP:HUSH, WP:PA, WP:CIVILITY, and harass me WP:HARASS, and hound me WP:HOUND to attack me on other editor's talk pages. I see you keep addressing FTS's concerns but not mine. If you can let me know, that'd be great. Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware, it appears that FollowTheSources was indef blocked. BetsyRMadison, I am glad to work with you and Hulk provided you agree to the ground rules I laid out above. Once again, I am not an admin, so all I can do is help you both talk it out, but I am happy to do that. --WMSR (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you WMSR. I appreciate all your help. Here goes: I find it very disruptive when Hulk went/goes to my personal talk to page to personally attack me, my integrity, and to falsely accuse me of crimes and other nonsense. I do not find the language used when attacking me is "artful" or "sarcastic" or "humorous." I find the language used to attack me is vitriolic, mean-spirited, and done with malicious intent. I feel the WP:HOUND hounding and language used to attack me is designed to intentionally harm my reputation, discredit me, with a goal of silencing me. I feel the decision go to my talk page to personally attack me & accuse me of crimes and other nonsense was done intentionally so as to give an illusion to other editor's that I am somehow untrustworthy and undeserving. I would like to have every single comment that Hulk said to me, or about me, on my talk page and other talk pages completely deleted and never restored. I would also like for Hulk to never go to my talk page ever again. If you need documentation, I can send you "diffs." Thanks again for your help, I very much appreciate it BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, thanks for that. Again, I am in no position to make anyone do anything. It would be helpful to know which comments specifically you are referring to. And it will help if you could try not to characterize Hulk's actions; tell us what he said and how it made you feel. Also, just so you know, you are free to remove comments from your talk page either by deleting them or replacing them with the {{rpa}} template. Note that doing this does not delete anything permanently (folks can still see previous versions of the page in history). --WMSR (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

To WMSR - Above, at timestamp 20:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC), I explain how I feel about Hulk's actions against me from Hulk's individual comments and also by adding all Hulk's comments together. I am attaching (below) all of Hulk's comments ("diffs") that I refer to in my above comments.

User Space Harassment WP:HUSH, WP:PA, WP:HARASS, WP:CIVILITY - Without being pinged & without being invited Hulk went to my personal talk page and posts personally attacks against me and my integrity to intentionally attempt to harm my reputation, discredit me, and silence me.   

Diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
May 18 (all times in UTC) 3:43 [27]  3:47 [28] 3:52 [29] 3:53 [30] 4:01 [31] 4:03 [32] 5.41 [33] May 19 After I told Hulk to stop using my talk page to  attack me (my 1st of two comments to Hulk) - Hulk kept using my talk page to attack me 3:51 [34] 3:53 [35] After I insulted Hulk for using my personal talk page to attack me (My 2nd, of two, comments to Hulk) - Hulk kept using my talk page to attack me 3:59 [36] 4:00 [37] 4:03 [38] 4:15 [39] 4:23 [40] May 19, 2020: I was being hounded WP:HOUNDING by Hulk, who personally attacked me on a different Editor A's talk page after I posted a comment on Editor A's page. (Hulk had not been pinged in any way, shape, or form.) 4:57 [41] I was hounded by Hulk who personally attacked on a different Editor "B's" talk page after I posted a comment on Editor B's page. (again, Hulk had not been pinged in any way, shape, or form) 5:14 [42] 8:17 [43] 8:20 [44] 17:02 [45]

Please reread my above comment at timestamp 20:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC) to refresh your memory on how I felt as a result of Hulk's actions and how I feel this will best be resolved. Thanks again for everything! BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: This discussion is not about policy. You don't need to convince me of anything because I cannot take any action one way or another. A collection of diffs is not what I'm looking for. You also don't have to call me "Editor B"; I know who I am. I'm asking what specifically he said that upset you, and why. His calling into question whether you have a neutral point of view, for example, is not an insult. Unless you both take this seriously, there's not a whole lot I can do, but I can tell you that from the diffs you posted, no admin in their right mind would sanction Hulk without also sanctioning you. --WMSR (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

To WMSR - I sent the diffs because I felt it would be easier for you to see the malicious unfounded attacks against me. I have no interest in copy/pasting the lies that were said about me, it's bad enough they exist on my page. Two things about sanctions: 1) my objective is to have Hulk delete his ridiculous accusations against me willingly; and if Hulk won't do that, then I guess I'd have to have someone compel Hulk to, and 2) You say I'd be sanctioned, why do you think I'd be sanctioned. What policy did I breach. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll neither do it nor feel any compulsion to, but you're more than welcome to scrub me from your Talk Page. If you touch anything elsewhere, though, I will feel compelled to teach you what WMSR taught me about community justice. If you have one or two specific alterations in mind for those, just ask, I'm open to sane compromises. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I intended to harm, discredit and silence what I viewed as a campaign to bury Reade and push Biden, not a person. I feel FTS made it more personal by assuming I addressed BRM in particular. I mean "crime" as a violation of Wikipedia policy, not real-world law. I believe BRM was genuinely insulted, to a degree, and am sorry for that. I also believe she is feigning a large deal of injury to strengthen her complaint against me, so that I might be conveniently blocked. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

To InedibleHulk -- Sometimes, often times, people accuse others of things they themselves are guilty of. Perhaps you should look in the mirror and examine your own objectives and possible biases before going around half-loaded and personally attacking others and accusing them of things that you, yourself, may be guilty of doing. I am 100% certain that you cannot point to one single thing I have ever written to support your unfounded, vitriolic attacks against me. 

As for "campaign" -- The only campaign I have, or ever have had, on here is to report all the facts and truth supported by reliable source for the WP reader, no matter what those facts are or how chilling those facts may be to any party involved. It makes no difference to me if the facts from reliable sources are chilling to Biden, or to Reade, or to anyone else. I have no dog in the fight and I could not care any less who the facts are chilling to. The WP reader deserves all the facts. Period. 

As for your new accusation alleging I want you "blocked" 1) My goal isn't to block anyone. I stated my goal above at timestamp: 20:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC): I want you to stop hounding me, stop harassing me, stop personally attacking me, stop using my personal talk page to attack me, delete every single comment that you've said to me, or about me, on my talk page and other editor's talk pages.  2) As long as you are not personally attacking me, I don't give one damn what you post on this website, your words are a reflection of you and who you are.

Ask yourself this Hulk: if I was attempting a "block" why would I be on a non-admins page simply requesting that you stop doing the things I wrote above?  Your perceived opinion me is very flawed and is unfounded in reality, but here again, I don't give one damn what your opinion of me is. I just want you to stop personally attacking me, hounding me, and harassing me. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If you point me to one or two instances of something you think is fueled by vitriol, I'm 95% sure I can point to one or two reasons it's fair critique, not savage attack. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, you are again making accusations instead of I-messages. I really can't help if you won't follow the rules I laid out. I understand if you think it's unfair, but I'm not here to make a summary judgement. You admitted to insulting Hulk as well, and I'm not here to identify who's at fault for anything, I just want to work this out. --WMSR (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

To WMSR - Thank you again for all your help & efforts. I feel it's important to state things clearly & not to be accidentally misquoted. I said "I insulted Hulk for using my personal talk page to attack me ... Hulk kept using my talk page to attack me." I already explained how I feel about Hulk's actions against me at timestamp 20:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC) and I explained that it is all of Hulk's comments (in the diffs & Hulk's comments to me below the diffs on this page) are an attack against me. There is only one way to resolve this, only one, and that is for Hulk to stop harassing me, stop hounding me, delete every comment Hulk said about me on editor's talk pages, and stop using my personal talk page to attack me. If Hulk wants to discuss content of any WP article with me, then Hulk can do so on the article's Talk Page. If Hulk chooses to keep breaching WP:PA, WP:HUSH, WP:CIVILITY, WP:HOUNDING, WP:HARASS against me, even if it is just one more time, anywhere at all; then I will be forced to take Hulk's actions to the next level & see what happens there. Again, I thank you for all your help. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, if you are just going to issue ultimatums, there is no reason for me to be involved. Two wrongs don't make a right; it was just as wrong for you to insult Hulk as was for him to insult you. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and if you continue to approach it as such, you will only run into more problems. I asked you both to agree to two ground rules; Hulk has abided by them and you have not. Please use I-messages to communicate. Something along the lines of "I am angry at everything he said (see diffs)" is not helpful. Repeating the same points will only take this conversation in circles. --WMSR (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I also feel this is getting ridiculous and going nowhere. I'm not going to delete anything that you claim is hounding, hushing, harassment, incivil or personally insulting unless you indicate how something specific breaches what you say it does. If you want to kick this up a level, knock yourself out, but this will likely backfire. I don't even say that as wishful thinking, just an honest appraisal based on the sheer number of times you've literally called me some form of stupid, lying, malicious, incompetent, childlike, angry and elsewise a bad person, including while repeatedly pinging me after I politely let you know I can already see what you're saying and do not need alarm bells on top of your bogus accusations, refusal to negotiate, POV forum-hopping, unattractive text formatting and general single-purpose disruption. I also stand by the length of the preceding run-on sentence, and will die on that hill, if required. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Weird revert

Care to elaborate why revert on territorial disputes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.47.43.16 (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@202.47.43.16: You wrote that India has been taken over by fascists. That is patently false and constitutes vandalism. --WMSR (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

No it does not unless you are Indian. Do not throw fancy words at me. Patently? The addition is in the same nature as the prior statement. If I remove that, another one of you kind will hop in and say removing stuff is vandalism. And to elaborate since you didn't even see the change properly, I said India is taken over by BJP which is a politically party currently in power, the rest is it's background, just like statement about Pakistan is inference from the linked article. The references are braindead articles misquoting people, most of them are broken links.

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote

Dear WMSR,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Announcing WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Dear Wikipedians and contributors, the open source Wikipedia review tool, previously "WikiLoop Battlefield" has completed its name vote and is announcing its new name: WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Read the full story on the program page on Meta-wiki, learn about ways to support this tool, and find out what future developments are coming for this tool.

Thank you to everyone who took part in the vote!

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Hi WMSR/Archive 1,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

Unconstructive edits

Please respond to my questions on the Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination talk page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

HI WMSR/Archive 1,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review

Wikipedia mini globe handheld

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Date sorting in lists

Aloha WMSR! Mahalo for all your contributions to Wikipedia. You recently implemented "data-sort-type" on the List_of_American_politicians_who_switched_parties_in_office. Unfortunately, despite your intentions to improve Wikipedia, this actually broke the sorting. See Help:Sorting#Date_table_sorting_template:_Day_and_month.2C_Many_other_date_formats I couldn't manage to figure out a way to search for your changes to see if any other similar ones were done, but if so, they may need to be undone. Wdpk42 (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Albania Sputnik ref

I removed a reference for Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine authorization in Albania. It seems to be some reference misnaming or something similar and that you had a good reference at hand and can more easily provide one, so I left the Albania entry. Leaving a message here, just in case you aren't watching the page. Personuser (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

What in the world was that edit?

See [46]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be my failure to properly use the ReferenceExpander script. Rest assured, I am now much more careful with it! Sorry if I caused any problems. WMSR (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's another one of those insane ones.[47] I cleaned it up, but you should go through your own ReferenceExpander edits and take care of any other messes yourself. eritain (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Please close div tags

Please close all div tags that you open in wikitext, like this. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the template color error

I noticed the issue on Monday and was about to message you about it today, but saw that you had already taken care of it. Thanks so much! Mcampany (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Political party strength pages

I'm curious why you think using <sm> tags on party lables is necessary or desirable? The pages are literally about the history of political parties' strength in the states as much as about the officeholders. Plus I don't think it looks good personally Nevermore27 (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nevermore27: I made the changes because most of the tables are huge, and was hoping to narrow the overall width to better suit smaller screens. I know there are better ways to go about that, but it's a start, and I plan to go back and make additional changes to the pages as well. But if it is a serious problem, feel free to make any necessary changes. WMSR (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Political party logos

Hi, I was just wondering if have you discussed the changes you are making to lists of political parties with other editors about adding logos? I think this issue has been raised and discussed before. One of the major issues you will see is in the space of a few days or weeks after you add party logos to these pages many will be removed by bots due to copyright issues. It then leaves pages with incomplete and sparse amounts of party logos that looks poor and gives some parties an edge over others. That's why in my opinion it’s better to leave them out as many are often copyrighted so can't be used on these pages. Helper201 (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I am being quite careful to only use logos that are not copyrighted on Commons, and keeping them small so as not to detract from other parties which may lack them. If too many parties don't have freely available logos, I have not added any to the page. WMSR (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Translations on List of political parties in India

Hi! I've noticed your edits to List of political parties in India. I've removed the translations, for the reasons outlined at WP:NOINDICSCRIPT. Other than that, the edits seem good to me. YttriumShrew (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@YttriumShrew: I had no idea about that item in the MOS- thanks for pointing it out and fixing my errors! WMSR (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Notoriety of an article

Hello, could you see if the notoriety of this article Hamza Bouazzaoui is good or it still needs to expand Nasty bits (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Question about AFD bundle

Hello @WMSR:, i started/attempted the second nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre (2nd nomination) but it wouldn't link up to related pages (25 total) such as Megab massacre, do you know how to link them up to the deletion discussion page? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Using Secretary of State Websites for Filing

@WMSR: Some points on why I've been using Secretary of State (SoS) sites for NC & TX in the past week:

1) I agree FEC filings are not reliable as sources indicating a candidate's run; however Secretary of State sites are NOT FEC filings; they are wholly different and serve different purposes. The editnotice you mention does not actually list SoS websites as an unreliable secondary source, just FEC filings, campaign websites, and Twitter posts/Ballotpedia.

2) SoS sites are the only way to ensure candidates are ultimately on the ballot for the primary (i.e. running for office). If a candidate who publicly says they're running, but doesn't file for election with the SoS, they are NOT on the ballot (and thus aren't running anymore). Thus, eventually, past the filing deadline, these SoS databases become the ONLY reliable source for candidate filings.

3) I have only been updating candidates with SoS cites during the official filing period for the state (currently only TX & NC) - which means SoS sites that have candidates currently (FL for example) are not quite reliable yet, I acknowledge that.

I hope this clears up where I'm coming from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenmaster190 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zenmaster190: While I understand your reasoning, state SoS sites are still inherently flawed for the same reason as FEC filings and campaign websites: they are primary, not secondary, sources. Filing to run for election does not mean that the "candidate" will follow through and run (it can sometimes be a financial maneuver). Once ballots are finalized, it may be a different story, but until then, anyone can submit paperwork to their state elections board. The standard for inclusion is a reliable secondary source (like a local newspaper) reporting on someone's declared candidacy (or on their failure to make it onto the ballot). I kindly ask that you restore my edits and stick to secondary sources for now. --WMSR (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@WMSR: Understood. I will revisit using SoS sites after the entire filing period has passed and candidates have been finalized. In the meanwhile, I will slowly restore secondary sources to the candidates that previously had them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenmaster190 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi WMSR. After reviewing your request, I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until 2022-06-01. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! -- TNT (talk • she/they) 00:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox political party

Hello fellow editor. Please dont carry out unusual mass edits in infoboxes across multiple pages like you recently did, it is quite uncommon to make the seats-section in party infoboxes compact, and there is no good reason for it either. The seats-section already look good enough as it is, making it compact makes it aesthetically ugly and doesn't provide anything of value to the infobox. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Metra

Per your technical requests, does the same apply to the "Rock Island", which is currently at Rock Island District? Cards84664 02:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It does, though I can't remember whether or not I already tried to move it. Should be Rock Island Line. WMSR (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cards84664: I take that back. Rock Island District is fine as it is, because it is multiple lines.--WMSR (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mackensen:

Website	PDF timetables
Milwaukee District North	Milwaukee District North Line
North Central Service	North Central Service Line
Union Pacific North	Union Pacific North Line
Union Pacific Northwest	Union Pacific Northwest Line
Heritage Corridor	Heritage Corridor
Metra Electric	Metra Electric District
Rock Island	Rock Island District Line
SouthWest Service	SouthWest Service
BNSF	BNSF Line
Milwaukee District West	Milwaukee District West Line
Union Pacific West	Union Pacific West Line

Hold it, the website says one thing and the PDF schedules say another thing. We need to re-determine the official names first. Cards84664 02:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Placeholder response acknowledging the ping but I don't have time this evening to look at this. Watching this page now. Mackensen (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, common usage definitely omits the word "district" for the Milwaukee District lines; people call them "Milwaukee North" or "Milwaukee West", but I doubt that's actually published anywhere. Nobody says "Union Pacific" either, just UP. I don't know as much about the western/southern lines. Obviously I have no issue keeping the full names, just trying to help determine what the best name is. --WMSR (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I still think we need consistency between Rock Island and Metra Electric, they should both be named as such or "District" retained in both. Cards84664 00:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking through back issues of Trains to see how they handle it, and in one article (at least) they write "Metra Electric lines" vs "Rock Island District." However, I have an article from a year later that contradicts this usage and includes "District" for both. Neither discusses the Metra Electric (District?) in real depth. Mackensen (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Since both the Rock Island and Metra Electric Districts contain multiple lines, I think it makes sense to keep calling them "districts" as opposed to "lines". WMSR (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Connections for service articles

Two notes about connection lists for Amtrak etc services:

• Per MOS:BOLD, the name of the operator should not be bolded in these lists.
• For routes like Capitol Corridor that connect with numerous bus networks, I think it's better to only list the operator names, rather than list out every single bus routes. Otherwise, it's almost impossible to keep the lists up to date given the frequency with which bus networks can change.

Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Congressional delegation pages

Hi WMSR, I noticed that in the past 6 months or so you've significantly contributed to the articles on the congressional delegations of the various states. But I noticed a significant flaw in the tables of the past congressional delegation where scrollable table has been used. For example in United States congressional delegations from California, the leftmost "year and congress number" column and the rest of the table gets split and appears below the first column. This makes following the table with 53 districts incredibly difficult. Can you fix it? Thanks! ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 22:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Linkbr

Template:Linkbr has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:USCongRep/DE/88

Do you have a plan to use {{USCongRep/DE/88}} and the many untranscluded similar templates? There are currently about 40 of them appearing on Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates/1. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 Hi! Yes, I do, but it's difficult to use them wihtout a complete set, which I have meant to finish but gotten a bit lazy. WMSR (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Transcluding them in even one under-development page, like a sandbox in your user space, would remove them from the "unused templates" report. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I've transcluded most of them onto appropriate pages, so there should be fewer of them in the unused category now. I'll try to do a better job of making sure I transclude them as soon as a batch is ready to go. WMSR (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort! The report is refreshed daily, so those template pages should disappear from the report in about nine hours. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Progress. There are only 12 templates left in the list at Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates/1. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jonesey95, that should be all of them now! WMSR (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War, 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/Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War 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) 01:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Party table in Political parties of Ukraine

Hello! I was just wondering if the table you added to political parties of Ukraine yesterday was transcribed from somewhere/if there was any particular reason for the specific order? It seems a little arbitrary to me -- if there is no specific justificaton, would it make more sense to just import the first table from list of political parties in Ukraine? Cran32 (talk | contributions) 15:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cran32 I didn't realize there was a separate list article; my bad! I'll remove the table. Thanks for pointing this out. WMSR (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Settlements on Module:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map

Hi. You recently removed some settlements from Module:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map. While I agree that small settlements away from the front line should be removed, there is a rationale for preserving larger settlements in that they show the population distribution within the country. Of course, there has been no consensus on what settlements to keep or remove since you brought up this question. I've been putting in the minimum effort to keep that thread alive and hopefully moving (albeit slowly) towards consensus instead of the archive, but I suggest we now try actively pursuing consensus by following the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, because all we have at the moment is a series of often-conflicting opinions. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you comment out (--) the settlements which it may be controversial to remove from the module, instead of deleting them entirely. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Why move fare zone column?

Curious, why did you move the fare zone column on the RTD rail pages? In my mind, the station name seems like the most important piece of information and therefore should be in the furthest left column. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I moved them to be more consistent with other listings of stations on similar pages. WMSR (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Which pages are you thinking of? I really do think that that station names should come first. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Metra lines, South Shore Line, MBTA Commuter Rail lines, NJ Transit lines, Long Island Rail Road lines, Metro-North Railroad lines, and SEPTA Regional Rail lines. WMSR (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Results of the 2021 Canadian federal election by riding

Please stop altering the format of this article; there is a standard format for these Canadian results pages. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@G. Timothy Walton, is this standardized format written somewhere? The tables are excessively long, and putting the percentage and raw vote total on the same line is standard practice elsewhere. WMSR (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel like sorting through the Talk page archives on multiple articles. The layout has been in place for years. There's a Canada Elections project page; ask there.

Where is this standard practice you mention used? I'd like to see if there have the same pattern of long riding and candidate names and the number of candidate columns. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to American election results pages and the layout of {{Composition bar}}. Line breaks can be used for exceptionally long riding names to reduce the width of that column, especially since the format of the table requires that each row be more than one line anyway. WMSR (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

BSicon assistance

Hi, I am currently working on a system map for Metra, and was wondering about how to obtain some icons that don’t currently exist in the desired colors, like "pHST jade". The map is currently on my user page, and at the time I typed this, I am about halfway finished with a rough draft of the north lines. Do you know who I can reach out to for these icons to be created? Thank you! -HwK Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This is probably your best bet. WMSR (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Ref question

What is this? It's the first time I've seen that type of citation format. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean, it reduces the post-expand include size of the templates on the article, which is important for articles that have a lot of templates (like citations) or transcluded content. The documentation for Module:Cite web also has some more info. WMSR (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay....but I am still rather ignorant of what's going on. I like properly formatted refs and want to get it right. Is this a fairly new practice we should now start doing with all citations? The reason I even noticed your edit was that it significantly bloated the size of the article (but not as badly as when people add archive links for live links), but if it serves a higher purpose, that's fine. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean, no, it is not recommended for all pages. Just those where post-expand include size is exceeded, which was the case for that article. WMSR (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I still don't understand much, but would that apply to Steele dossier? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean no, everything on that page is functioning properly. You can see when the post-expand include size is exceeded because templates won't load or citations won't show up. Pages where this is the case can be found at Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded. WMSR (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the patient explanations. Keep up the good work. 👏 Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine

@WMSR On Template:Rail-interchange, you've added Ukraine using "uk" as the key. That has potential to be confused with the UK; would "ua" be better (as Ukraine's internet TLD)? Bazza (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep that's my bad. Fixed. Thanks for pointing me out. WMSR (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ReferenceExpander

Just a friendly heads-up in case you weren't already aware, since it's installed on your common.js: Careless use of ReferenceExpander has caused serious problems. It's currently at MFD, and a large cleanup project is underway to repair the citations damaged by the script. I and several other users have !voted that the script be deleted or disabled, and I wouldn't recommend using it at all unless you thoroughly check every reference it modifies against the previous revision. If you're interested in a more detailed explanation of the script's issues, Folly Mox has provided an excellent summary at the MFD. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Rail-interchange links

Hello, I was wondering if there was any chance you could change the targets to four rail-interchange links that relate to Metra commuter rail. I am referring to BNSF, UP-N, UP-NW, and UP-W. The linked pages were all renamed perhaps a year ago; the word "Railway" was dropped from "BNSF Line", and slashes were dropped from the other three pages. Would you mind fixing the targets? I had tried to figure it out on my own, but it looks like I would require "Template Editor" permissions (and the coding appears to be way over my head.) Thanks for your time and contributions! Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I managed to forget, but there are actually six affected links, not four. Could you also remove the slashes from the MD-N and MD-W links? Sorry and thank you. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Done! WMSR (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi, how are you determining that the common name for 19th century politicians uses the middle initial rather than the full name? I don't see much justification for such moves. Addendum, in any case, I'm not terribly concerned about the moves, but please note that you need to do some cleanup when you make such moves and several of the pages have ended up in Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review as a result. older ≠ wiser 10:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I came here for the same reason. It appears you're categorically eliminating full names. While that's largely a good thing, I agree that you're perhaps not being judicious. Two things I noticed in particular. Firstly, WP:AT strongly suggests that parenthetical disambiguation is intended to be a last resort, not a first resort. Some of these moves appear to disregard that. Secondly, there were moves where the talk page didn't get moved along with the article, which could be what Bkonrad was referring to above. Maybe you're doing this at too fast a pace to check your work. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I also came here with this concern. Your move of John Edward Bouligny to John E. Bouligny is flat out wrong. Political Graveyard may list him as that, but he went by his middle name and is found in contemporary sources as Edward Bouligny and as John Edward Bouligny. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

As I have started noting, I am mostly using Political Graveyard when determining whether to make these moves. I don't know if it would be more appropriate to have a larger discussion about the "default" names for 19th and 20th century American politicians. I will certainly reduce parenthetical dabs, and be more careful about cleanup when moving. In the case of J. E. Bouligny (or if I make any other errors), please feel free to revert/correct and bring to my attention. WMSR (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

John Edward Bouligny is the proper page name. (In French-language press, he's almost always J. Edouard, but English press is all over the place with J.E. John Edward or just Edward.) This is one that should remain where it was. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Wanted to add an additional note. Not sure "political graveyard" is (or should be) the ultimate guideline for this decision. It's only happened to a few pages I've been a part of happened to a bunch of pages I'm a part of. I usually make the decision in article naming from how the majority of sources I use reference their name; not just one source (i.e., political graveyard)... I'd like a bit more thought going into these renamings beyond "per political graveyard" in the edit description. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Most of these pages only cite the Congressional Bioguide, which generally only lists full names. When possible, I do go by the majority of sources on the page, but very often there simply aren't any. WMSR (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You are leaving many double redirects by doing this... i.e., John K. Cowen now has John Cowen... Has there been any discussion about this elsewhere? --Engineerchange (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that there are bots that fix this automatically. WMSR (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Page moves

Hey, good job on the page moves. But do you mind fixing the name/birth_name and defaultsort parameters after you move the pages? Cheers!--Ortizesp (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)