User talk:CJDOS/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please don't fix working links

Hi, DeNoel, please don't needlessly alter piped links as you did here at BDSM when the original redirect link was correct and working. Also, please don't needlessly add a piped link as you did here; redirects are part of the encyclopedia, and have various advantages. See WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Similarly, optional spaces around section headers have no effect on how the page is rendered, so should not be altered as in this edit per MOS:VAR; same thing for template capitalization ({{Cite web}} = {{cite web}}), param aliases (|last1= or |last=), and so on as in this one. See WP:CITEVAR. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not all section headers: There is a section of text mid-paragraph that is separated by a line break, which was not shown in the article, only in the source text. Further, there is no need to number single authors, and bots will fix this just as I have done. I appreciate what you are saying about the unbroken links, but I believe you are jumping to conclusions with other parts/edits. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sampo (film)

Thank you, Kevo327 and MarnetteD. I normally replace bare URLs with citation templates if I'm able to do so, rather than tagging them for someone else. It was late, and I was heading to bed. I very much appreciate that you completed the task for me. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Glad to help DeNoel. Have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 23:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I just checked and it was Kevo 327 who did the important work. I do have one suggestion. On the rare occasion that you don't fix the bare url yourself please use one of the general templates like this {{linkrot}} at the top of the page rather than the inline one. Those are difficult to find even on brief articles. They also don't have an easy access to refill the way the general ones do. From what you say this wont happen very often but anything you can do to help will be appreciated. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 23:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Help request for closing/summarizing an RfC

Hello. Seeing as you've edited International Bureau of Weights and Measures before, would you care to close/summarize this RfC? Apparently me stating the obvious has less weight than an uninvolved third-party. Thank you. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that in the infobox, but chose not to get involved with the discussion regarding IBWM as an unofficial initialism. After having reviewed the arguments, I am ready to finalize it, but as I have left a question with a declaration of abstention, I will leave it for 7 days. If no further reason to keep the discussion open has been offered after that time, I will consider the discussion closed. However, § Use of the English name (and acronym) for this organisation is quite a long section, and connected with the discussion to be closed. I think in this case, the best approach would be to request an uninvolved admin perform the closure, if for no other reason than my uncertainty of what to do with the discussion above the Rfc section. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

International Bureau of Weights and Measures

Hello, DeFacto. As your own talk page is very populated, I'll bring this side-discussion here to my own talk page. I see that you are strongly contesting the exclusion of the initialism IBWM from the International Bureau of Weights and Measures article. I've brought you here to share with you my own similar experience.

Article Mustard gas, which is a misnomer for the chemical sulfur mustard because by definition, it is not a "gas". There was a discussion about moving the article Sulfur mustard → Mustard gas. I strongly contested the proposed move, but I was up against Wikipedia titling policies, and had exhausted all my arguments.

I lost the argument, but I gave it all I could. The relationship is that you appear to be standing on your own with the initialism IBWM, but you have argued strongly for what you believe, and I think these things go underappreciated. Thank you — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Your custom signature

Your custom signature appears to violate the first policy/guideline constraint expressed at WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. I suggest renaming your user account if you want to keep that signature. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You're the first person to make such a suggestion—no admin I've interacted with has said anything about it in the 12 years I've used this combination. I will relay this matter privately to an admin for discussion. Please do not instigate any changes to my username or signature until I've discussed the matter.
— Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi BarrelProof I don't think thaat it does violate WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username". If you hover over the signature then DeNoel is visible and that's clear. The only thing that would be a problem is if there was no link to here or their user page. They are not the only user to have a signature that doesn't match the user name. One of the more notable is Timtrent (sorry for the ping) who signs as Fiddle Faddle. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, happy to be pinged. I agree, neither you nor I violate this policy. Fiddle Faddle 13:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Personally, I found it a bit confusing, since someone engaged in a talk page discussion might say "I agree with DeNoel" when there is no obvious participation by DeNoel in the conversation (and searching the discussion for DeNoel would find nothing unless you search the source code). But if it is commonly tolerated, I defer, of course. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Lua code visible at bottom of Module page

I recently performed some cleanup of the Module:Wikitable (hyphenated template parameters, etc). I noticed that there is Lua code that appears at the bottom of the page, just below the transcluded documentation. I do not know how to make this code invisible to the casual viewer (if it is even possible).
My tests (adding Template:Noinclude) performed in Preview mode produces...

 Script error: Lua error at line 1: unexpected symbol near '<'. 

... and breaks the table on the right side of the module page. I do not wish to proceed without instructions, so as to avoid disrupting the module. Is it possible for the Lua code to be hidden from view, but still functional, and how?
— Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The code from a Module is always visible beneath the documentation, that's just the way it's displayed. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Esperanto Wikipedia links in articles

I felt it would be more appropriate to ask this question here on my own Talk page, than the article in question's Talk page. When viewing the Source text for the English Wikipedia article Gravity of Earth, at the very bottom of the Source is: [[eo:Gravita akcelo]]

I have examined the English article, and couldn't see anything obvious that should indicate what this Esperanto Wikipedia link does for the English article. I'm sure there's a reason why it's there—I've used inter-language Wikipedia links—but I'm at a loss for how this specific instance works. Is it possibly a remnant from a copy-over by a previous editor, in which case should I delete it? — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

In the left sidebar of every article there is a section with links to that article in Wikipedias written in other languages. Those links are managed at Wikidata. However, before Wikidata was created in October 2012, you had to add those links directly to the Wikipedia article itself (a "local interlanguage link"). After Wikidata was created, a bot moved many of those local links to Wikidata, but for some reason forgot to did this for the Esperanto Wikipedia. It also seems that the Esperanto article is about gravitational acceleration rather than the gravity of Earth, so I've removed it. Kleinpecan (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Your sig, again

Your custom signature violates the first policy/guideline constraint expressed at WP:CUSTOMSIG/P: A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username.

You sig as used in this edit[1] is encoded as:

<span class="nowrap">— [[User:DeNoel|Christopher, Sheridan, OR]] ([[User talk:DeNoel|talk]]) 16:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)</span>

which renders as:

— Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That sig provides no visible clue to your username.

You have been warned about this before, in March 2021 I suggest renaming your user account if you want to keep that signature. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I will refer you to the discussion at User talk:DeNoel/Archive 1#Your custom signature. Unless the three respondents (CambridgeBayWeather, Timtrent, and BarrelProof) wish to reevaluate, I see this matter as closed. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl. The guideline says "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username", "A customised signature should provide an easily identified link to your talk page. You are encouraged to also provide a link to your user page." and "Do not impersonate other users" among other things. The signature complies with all three of those. If you hover over their signature you can see who they are. It does provide a link to this talk page and a link to the user page. It does not impersonate another user as Christopher, Sheridan, OR isn't registered. A quick look shows other users who's signature isn't the same as their username, others who have no link to their user page but does to the talk page and yet others who link to the user page but not to the talk page.

The guideline also says "It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents" which means that the signature used by DeNoel is not following common practices but is not forbidden either. If you want this type of signature to be banned then that section or the whole of Wikipedia:Signatures need promoting to a policy. However, looking at the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy would apply. By the way, I have had complaints about the links to my talk page and contributions in my signature as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Which part of A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username is unclear or ambiguous?

Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, rather tan just linking to it. That policy says Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.

In what way does following the rule about identifying yourself in your sig truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia?

@DeNoel, the matter is not closed until the sig is fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That is my stance: at this time, there is nothing wrong with my signature. However, if there are several complaints about the formatting which would apply broadly to many Wikipedia editors, then it will have to be addressed at the broad level first. After which, I wish to be informed of the new policy so I can apply the necessary adjustments to my own signature as prescribed.

On a side note, I'm unaware that users are required to have a User page, or even a Talk page for that matter, but I have neither read nor seen this in practice (accepting that the Talk page owner need not be the one to create it). If such a requirement exists, then it would tie in with this discussion, and I wish to be similarly informed, though I am (slowly) constructing my User page at this time.

Further still, I don't like my signature to be broken by word wrapping. My personal opinion is that if my signature is short enough, adding nowrap to my signature shouldn't be of concern (but would be an issue if considered too long). I have run into an problem, however, of trying to make <span class="nowrap">(signature)</span> work properly in my Preferences, and I am keen to learn how to sign without having to manually append <span class="nowrap"> every time I sign. My signature under Preferences, currently looks like this, treated as wiki markup:

{{SUBST:em dash}} [[User:DeNoel|Christopher, Sheridan, OR]] ([[User talk:DeNoel|talk]])

— Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC) (text struck 11:12, 26 May 2021‎)

• DeNoel, Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. Please be collegiate and direct your efforts to displaying your username as a first priority, before you pursue other tweaks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you please rephrase and clarify that comment? — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My comment is perfectly clear as it is. Act collaboratively, and create a simple sig which both links to your username and visibly displays your username. Then, if you want to tweak it, ask for help with that ... but first, comply with the guideline and stop this bizarre game of pretending that "Christopher, Sheridan, O" identifies your username as "DeNoel". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have read the policy and many others. Notice that it says "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles." So why are you trying to follow an overly strict interpretation of a guideline? If their signature was that confusing how did you end up here? Once again. If you hover over their signature then you can see who they are and can come straight here to their talk page. I take it you will notify me on my talk page when you escalate this elsewhere? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather, this is not complicated. The policy says "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username". DeNoel's signature does not display their username, or any variation thereof.

I got here because I followed a link. However, the policy about a linking is a separate issue. Other editors should not have to click on the link (or mouseover it) to identify the username.

You are quite correct that WP:BURO says "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles.". And the principle in this case is clear and simple: that a sig should easily identify a user. DeNoel's sig does not do that, and I am puzzled that you seem unwilling to acknowledge the very simple fact that "Christopher, Sheridan, OR" provides no hint of "DeNoel". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm unwilling because over the years I have seen others with the same type of signature and the ongoing attempts by multiple editors to make Wikipedia a bureaucracy. I have been told, not by you, that an essay, which has been edited by 3 or 4 people, must be complied with. I used to have "CBW" as my signature and was told that was not acceptable. I can't understand why the problem with this one user and not the others? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather, this is very very simple. Your current displays your username. A sig which just says "CBW" does not display your username. I am astonished that you claim not to comprehend this, and am unsure whether that is a genuine statement of your view, or just trolling.

A simple rule of clearly identifying yourself is not "bureaucracy". It's simple etiquette in communication, of not making others play guessing games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really don't have the time to troll. I'm not at all clear how [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CBW]] was a problem. You need to get the guideline promoted to a policy. Nor can I understand why this user and not any other ones. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"CBW" is a problem because it does not visibly indicate that the username is "CambridgeBayWeather". That connection can be made only by mouseover of the link, or by prior knowledge.

This impedes editors who see the username in page histories etc, and have to do extra scrutiny to make the connection.

It's all very weird. Editors here choose their own username. If they regret the choice, they can change their username. But having made the choice and stuck with it, why on earth play games by obscuring or omitting that identifier? Yelling "bureaucracy" is a bizarre response to a request by fellow editors to simply identify yourself clearly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Having been pinged, I feel that there are more productive uses of editors' time than to discuss and discuss and discuss this. WHy not make some DYKs, GAs, review some AFCs, participate in AfDs. THat is what we are meant to do here apart fomr other ordinary editing tasks

I have evaluated, over time, for my own reaosns and for no-one else's. Of course we also know that precedents arte not set on Wikipedia. For my own reasons, and not because of any other editor's request, or, in some cases, thinly veiled threats (folk can, should they so wish perfomr a massive talk page archive trawl), I have chosen to make my signature somewhat clearer while retaining my own eccentricities.

I do not feel that my own decisions should influence anyone else. I may yet return to the more anonymous signature. I make signature changes from time to time and at my sole discretion. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 20:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• This comment is a little off-topic, but I think the span trick is nice. I didn't know about that before. I had previously wanted to use {{nowrap}} to avoid a wrap between my dash and username, but learned that templates were not allowed in signatures. Just as a suggestion, you might want to consider using U+202F   [[ |NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE]] instead of an ordinary space between the em dash and the rest, in order to make the gap a little narrower. That's what I'm currently doing here: — BarrelProof (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• @BarrelProof I decided to use & nbsp ; without the spaces, following seeing your note here. Seems to work Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 22:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, that should work, but it's a little wider. It's fine in the place you're using it, but in the place I'm using it, it seems a little too wide. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Yes, I've used   on music articles to separate a final apostrophe from a quotation mark. I will add it to my signature in due course. Adding <span class="nowrap">(signature)</span> is where I've been having issues. The tests I performed previously have not prevented word wrapping of my signature, so I've been using it manually until I figure out how to make it work in my Preferences (before the complaint with WP:SIGNATURE was raised, which is a separate issue that I won't broach upon you). — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You might try {{'"}} and {{'-}} (outside of signatures), as used for the Grateful Dead song article "Truckin'" and the Eddie Kendricks song "Keep on Truckin'", and I just discovered  , which is even thinner than   (maybe too thin). — BarrelProof (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Article Dynasty (Kiss album) has a table formatted to quotation song titles automatically. Your suggestion would work for § Personnel, where the songs are manually enclosed within quotation marks. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"Dirty Livin{{'-}}" seems to work fine in the track listing of that article, although it's only marginally easier to type "{{'-}}" than "' ". Anyhow, Alive! and Destroyer were better, in my opinion. — BarrelProof (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Revisiting your suggestion above, my signature already includes   between the em dash and the rest of my signature (as shown in the comment much further up). Would this work between my User name and Talk page link to prevent word wrapping my signature? I think I've previously tried this, but overused &nbsp; by trying to include it within the link labels themselves. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You might want to not include the date and time within the span, since that's getting pretty wide. — BarrelProof (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm still working on it, BarrelProof. I think the length of my signature isn't too bad right now, but September is the longest character month, which may pose the length issue. I don't suppose there's a way that ~~~~ could be made to display the month as three letters?

One of the hangups I'm having is that I like my signature to suggest my geographical location, for cultural and time zone purposes. This means that only the first part of my signature will have to be changed: either to my username, or my username would have to change. I don't want my entire signature to be my username: A, that's too long of a login; B, I have changed addresses previously (have a glance at the bottom of my under construction User page in my sandbox, the table where I acknowledge my previous signatures). I don't think just Christopher for a username would work, either; I'm willing to bet that it's too common to be my username alone.

Also, I may have misinterpreted your non-breaking space and thin space coding suggestions. Did you implied incorporating {{'"}} or {{'-}} in my signature? I don't think I should, but I wanted to acknowledge the suggestion you intended, rather than what I interpreted.

Your thoughts or further suggestions? — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I wasn't suggesting to use those in your signature. I was just describing an alternative "to separate a final apostrophe from a quotation mark" in articles. Templates are apparently not allowed in signatures. — BarrelProof (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I've got the signature wordwrap issue fixed, though the timestamp likely will still wordwrap, which can't be helped (probably the same issue I tried to resolve before, but couldn't). A compromise, using html NBSP code in Preferences rather than manual adding html SPAN code in the Talk source. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Copied from ANI#Discussion, 24 May 2021

BrownHairedGirl, I'm afraid your argumentative, disrupting, self-serving attitude has extended well beyond the acceptable point. You could have asked to reopen the discussion on my talk page instead of being rude about it; that is why we're here—not because of the signature issue, it's your attitude. I must therefore request that you from henceforth, refrain from commenting to me on this matter. I will gladly listen to others with viewpoints that differ from my own. I do not welcome any further contact from you. May you have a sunny day tomorrow. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC) (archive linked 18:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC))

Decision

I have given the matter some thought. My conclusion is that if we agree to adjust the signature standard as suggested, then it should be done through community agreement. However, we should not allow individuals to enforce their own personal interpretation of WP:Signature; doing so would give individuals with no such position the freedom to walk all over anyone they choose.

I therefore have decided not to change my signature because of one sour grape. However, I will select an alternate signature ahead of time for use when the community decides it's time for such an adjustment. It has been suggested that I could keep my signature, but change my user name; I have not ruled out this option, but am not ready to change it yet (though I agree that doing so may be a good idea).

WP:DAPE—we're here to work towards the betterment of the project, not to drive editors away from it. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Some changes have taken place while I was in the process of copying my above decision. I will put this decision on hold while I investigate the developments. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Update: My decision will stand, but not by an effective conclusion. Rather, the archived discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068#User:DeNoel's sig was closed due to the corrosive nature of the discussion with a no-action decision, pending the policy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Signatures and usernames, which I anticipate will result in broad action. As stated, I will be preparing a new signature based some of the ideas already proposed, but I'm under no obligation to implement it until a policy is established (I expect to be ready before then, depending on how long the discussion takes). — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC) (archive linked 18:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC))

Changes pending

I want an acceptable signature that I like, not one that is just acceptable.
I've decided that the best solution would be to change my username to something satisfactory that I can incorporate into my existing signature. The signature I'm planning will place my username at the beginning, and thus should satisfy the upcoming changes to WP:SIGNATURE.
My change username request has been submitted; when it is accepted, I will change my signature. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done: My new username was just approved. I have completed the changes to my signature. My full username now appears at the beginning of my signature. The overall length has been reduced by six characters. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Civility

Based on the previous discussion, I'm interjecting at this time to stress a lack of civility in addressing concerns and replies. I'm going to take the above matter up with someone for evaluation. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

ANI discussion concerning you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:DeNoel's sig. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I know; I have been in the process of composing one myself. It seems we've inadvertently overlapped each other in that regard. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Discussion has been archived at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068#User:DeNoel's sig. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Interaction bans

I have made my request clear at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Discussion, and here on my Talk page, that I do not want to be contacted by User:BrownHairedGirl. That is not specifically what I'm asking for assistance with. I see that over at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, is a section for Voluntary interaction bans. I feel that if I expect a user to abide by my requested Interaction ban, then I must also abide by the same.

I would like my name to be added to the Voluntary list, banning me from having direct interaction with User:BrownHairedGirl. I must not comment/reply on said user's Talk page. If we happen to be part of the same discussion, I must not reply directly to said user, nor will I 'thank' them for an edit.

If interaction becomes necessary or otherwise unavoidable, such as the lifting of a ban on one user, it does not give the second user permission to disregard their half of the ban. Example: If I lift my ban request against User:BrownHairedGirl, that will not give me permission to go to her Talk page to inform her of the status change—I must still abide by said ban. A third party will have to mediate to avoid violating the ban (i.e. leaving a message on a banned user's Talk page to notify them of lifting the ban).

Other forms of respecting the ban are also expected to be followed. If I need to, I can refer to a conversation in which User:BrownHairedGirl was involved, but I should avoid directly calling them by name in a contentious manner, e.g. saying "(username) is a blight", is unacceptable, among other forms of incivility.

I intend to abide by the above as part of my request to be added to the Voluntary ban list. Let me know if other restrictions apply.
— Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to voluntarily abstain from ever contacting BrownHairedGirl then there's no problem: just don't contact her. You don't need to be added to any list in order to do that. As for BrownHairedGirl following a voluntary ban on contacting you, the very fact that you ask for it to be voluntary means that there's no place for it unless she wishes to take part, and I see no evidence that she does. Voluntary interaction bans are actually for a very different situation than this. JBW (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your evaluating this matter, JBW. The Interaction ban against said user was requested of her, not asked of her. She did reply once after I made it clear I didn't not want to be contacted, but I quietly reverted it, and there has been no further issue. The decision of whether she is to be placed on the involuntary list is not my personal business. I was thinking that when an admin replied, they would say something to the effect of: settle it between yourselves, if it can't be resolved, we'll take another look at it then. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Referenced discussion has been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068#Discussion. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Rename from "DeNoel" to "CJDOS"

Rename from "DeNoel" to "CJDOS" per request --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You should change your signature so it links to your new username or talk page (and please also include a mention of your username in your new sig). Renames are confusing to the rest of the world, so many renamed users continue to mention their old username in their sig for years. —Kusma (t·c) 16:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. —Kusma (t·c) 16:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Already done. As soon as I got the notification, I implemented the changes. Any appearance of my signature which does not display my current username, was signed prior to change approval. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic talk

I have noticed that this unsigned edit on the Template talk:Service award progress appears to be off-topic. Visiting the editor's user page, it appears that the only purpose of this addition was to post game standings, and the infobox is unrelated to the discussion of the template. I'm a little uncertain as the best way to handle this. I believe outright reverting the edit would be acceptable in this case (but I should tread carefully with such reversions). I see that Template:Off-topic talk is also an option, but I'm uncertain if it would be appropriate in this case. What would you suggest I do? Should I notify said user on their Talk page about their off-topic inclusion? — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed the off-topic edit from 12:51, 15 April 2020. Thanks for noticing. By the way, {{xt}} looks a bit odd when written as {{Xt}} so someone put {{lowercase title}} on the documentation page at Template:Xt/doc. That is the only reason it is showing at "xt" rather than "Xt". Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. I had just converted my discussion inquiry into a proper Requested move Template:xt → Template:Xt (with some issues, mentioned in the RM). In review of your comment, I've retracted my RM before a bot put it on the notice board. I will try to contact the template creator and ask them directly; if they disagree with removing the {{lowercase title}}, I will be satisfied with their response. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC) (edited 08:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC))

Before raising the issue, have a look at the many templates that use lowercase title. For example, {{doi}} (lowercase) is the standard way of referring to a Wikipedia:Digital Object Identifier—see "cite doi" which is never written as "cite Doi" or "cite DOI". Johnuniq (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Unauthorized creation of User talk page in another language

I have an unusual circumstance, and I'm not sure how it fits into Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. Someone has created a User talk page for me at https://hif.wikipedia.org/wiki/sadasya_ke_baat:CJDOS. I have not previously contributed to Fiji Hindi Wikipedia, and likely won't as it is not in a language I have interacted with. When I contribute to the Fiji Hindi Wikipedia, then my User talk page may be created.
Until then, I do not authorize that page's creation, and I hereby request its un-creation.

Thank you for your assistance; please outline the procedure for requesting the un-creation of a nonnative language inter-Wikipedia User talk page, in case I have need to un-create one in future.— CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC).

It is the Fiji Hindi wiki. The page was created by a bot that left a message of welcome. It may have been automatically triggered if you viewed any content at that wiki. (In fact, that's likely exactly what happened, as I now have an identical message on my talk page at that wiki, triggered by my visit there just now.) If you wish to request that the page be deleted, you will have to do so at that wiki. English Wikipedia is a separate wiki, and our administrative rights do not extend to other wikis. Suggestion: you can blank the page. — Diannaa (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I feel safe in assuming I have never visited that particular language Wikipedia prior. I only visited it after I received the rather distracting notification that the Talk page had been created for me. I though perhaps I had visited an English Wikipedia page wish a strong affiliation to that page through a geographic language. I don't want to seem unfriendly, but they don't have any business creating a Talk page for me at a Wiki I haven't contributed to yet. I had hoped I had some control over the deletion of my own User talk pages, or if nothing else, there would be such a thing as a Global Admin, so I wouldn't have to add content/contribute to the Fiji Hindi Wikipedia just to have the Talk page taken down (catch-22).

I had been wondering if I should have reported this on the WP:ANI board for coordinated awareness of the incident, but I guess there's no one locally I could lodge a complaint to. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: Sorry to ping you back, Diannaa, but I believe I have some information which could be of assistance should anyone else have a similar issue. User:Praxidicae at meta.wikimedia is someone who handles interwiki issues such as mine, and has been handling spam / bot-created user talk pages over at hif.wikipedia. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Z templates

Hello. As I did not find a primary template to post this question, I'll ask it here. Recently, I posted a warning on an unregistered user's Talk page regarding unproductive edits, using {{subst:Uw-vandalism1}} because it was on the little chart I initially came across (WP:WARNVAND). I noticed that when I had applied this template, it added {{Z186}} to the source.

Shortly after, I discovered the table of user warning templates. I felt that {{subst:Uw-subtle1}} would be more appropriate to the incident, and so I swapped the templates. I then noticed in the source that a Z template wasn't added to the user warning subtle template for vandalism, of which are not listed in the Z template list.

Is this intentional, or would it be appropriate to add the subtle warning templates to the list? What exactly does this Z list do? I read the doc, but don't really understand it. Is it a form of record keeping, so that an admin for instance, could verify that in the event of a second incident, that user had previously been warned? Thank you for clarifying this. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I had never noticed these Z templates before, but they were apparently introduced in 2009. Adding them to warning templates is still a work-in-progress. You could do what you propose, but it is clearly not an urgent matter.

The intent is not very specific. It just provides a mechanism to track SUBSTed templates. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – The template talk page is at Template talk:Z number documentation. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Z208

Template:Z208 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

subst:Tfd

Thank you, Pppery, for your assistance regarding the Tfd tag on Template:Z number documentation, which is transcluded on all the Z-number templates nominated for deletion. I only copied the tag by the substitution {{subst:Tfd}} and added the |heading= parameter, so if part of the substitution wasn't quite right, I apologize. I didn't look into the parameters of the original Tfd template, I only copied over what the instructions on the discussion page said to. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:RM relist

I'll discuss this on my talk page, Wbm1058.
I just got the notification. It took me a couple of minutes to catch up with what was being communicated in the requestedmoves.php edit and the RM relist edit. I didn't know that the bots have a copy of the template's source as part of their programming. I didn't think that adding a non-breaking space to Template:RM relist's source would have such an impact. I apologize for making things difficult. The nbsp was needed, but if I had realized how interwoven the template was, I would have said something. I am sorry. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You're not the first to do this – it happened in November 2019, that one I noticed after two weeks. I spotted the change when I saw that Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions (table) was only showing one relisted RM. After the bot patch, there were 58 relisted discussions. The bot looks for specific, standard syntax to detect relists. Notice that since this relisting was not placed in the expected location, the bot has not detected it. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to ping you again, Wbm1058; I have a couple of follow-up questions. First, as many other subst:templates use this for tracking, may I add
<!-- Template:RM relist --> between </small> and <noinclude> to the {{RM relist}} source code?

Second, I discovered that a discussion I had relisted had its RfC template removed by Legobot. I believe I'm am responsible through the fore mentioned issue. I have reverted the template removal; will the discussion go back up on the RfC/Maths, science, and technology board automatically until the RM relist tag expires again? I feel the discussion requires input from more editors. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Answering your second question. It's called {{RM relist}} for a reason. The template is used only for relisting Requested moves. I just updated the template documentation to make it more clear about this. Requests for comment is a separate process, supported by a different bot, with a different bot operator. Follow the instructions for that process at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. To extend a current RfC for another 30 days, and to prevent Legobot from automatically ending the RfC during the next month, insert a current timestamp immediately before the original timestamp of the opening statement. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for the help. I thought I only had to bump the discussion with a fresh timestamp. I will try to remember the correct relisting procedure next time. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Userbox alignment issues

This question is about a technical issue regarding the creation of userboxes, involving unexpected results.

I hate to ask for help for something like this, but I'm at a loss. Let's start with my subpage User:CJDOS/Userboxes (a work in progress). If we look down at the Teams section, all the userboxes are tightly aligned. {{User:UBX/MLB-AL}} is the only one of those that I created, and it's sitting by itself (not grouped).

Looking back up at Television, I thought the gap between the userboxes was due to {{User:UBX/Are You Being Served?}} being a little bit larger than the default size. However, when performing test edits, I had added a couple of userboxes, and temporarly replaced the Are You Being Served? userbox with a different one. A gap below the userboxes is still present. One might think that this is normal, but section Teams says otherwise.

One of the userboxes that I've worked on and tried to include in a test edit (in preview mode only; no saved history), is {{User edits to Wikipedia}}. This time, I noticed that whenever this userbox is the left one of the group, no gap, but when it's the right one in the group, the gap appears.

Something I've done to the userboxes that I've worked on, is causing a gap to appear below it when it is placed on the right side of an immediately adjacent userbox. Section Teams does not reproduce this error, not even when I put {{User:UBX/MLB-AL}} into a group on the right side. I need to learn what I'm doing to cause this so I don't spread it to more userboxes. We can create a new subpage for tests, which will be deleted after the problem has been identified.

Thank you very much in advance for your assistance in identifying the problematic code. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't had time to look closely at this, but after a quick look at the rendered page, I suspect that the default behaviour of the CSS box model, specifically box-sizing (MDN), may be causing issues with the userboxes that have a border. By default, the border is added on to the width and height (so for example, if the width is set to 100px, border to 2px, the total width will be 102px). Setting box-sizing: border-box; may give the behaviour you want. — LauritzT (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I doubt that there's anything in your userbox creation that is causing this. In my browser, I don't see any boxmodel issues, either. However, layout and alignment of various userboxes on a page will drive you crazy. If you put them all into nested tables, then you can style each row, column, and cell to suit your desired arrangement. See this page: User:Scottyoak2/Sandbox/Testspace1. I put borders around the tables so that you can see what is going on. Use the source editor to look at the code. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

PS: I added your AL userbox to my own userpage. [2] It fit in just fine. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both, LauritzT and Scottyoak2for your replies. Just to be clear, no apparent issue with {{User:UBX/MLB-AL}}; that subsection displays perfectly. It's the other subsection I'm having issues with. Adding any usebox I've worked on causes the display issue while MLB-AL doesn't. Scottyoak2's /Testspace1 subpage has a new issue in that it forces a scroll bar to appear because the userboxes won't wrap when the view is changed >100% or to mobile view.

I have temporarily recreated the issue in my sandbox (ignore everything outside the double–horizontal rule lines). In {{User:CJDOS/Userboxes/UBX-NHK World-Japan}}, I removed the creator-defined border width, but left the border color in place due to the background color; result, still gaps. How should UBX-NHK World-Japan be edited so that it produces a no-gap result like UBX/MLB-AL? — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC) (struck 00:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC))

• Solution: I've got it! :D Remove line breaks from around the <noinclude> tags.
  

Renders gap:

}}
<noinclude>
...
}}</noinclude>
<noinclude>{{Sandbox other||

Removes gap:

}}<noinclude>
...
}}{{Sandbox other||

— CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Maureen Wroblewitz

Hello. Help improve and copy edit. Thanks you. Kolpb (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite. It's 2 in the morning here, so I won't be looking at it for a while. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

StatusChanger

Hello, Enterprisey. I see that you are currently on vacation, and I hope you are having a safe and pleasant trip. I have been reminded that when I ping a user, and then edit the comment, the notification may not be sent. Unfortunately, I had done exactly that before being reminded; sorry. This brief comment is to let you know that I had left a message which is buried in your extensive talk page in § StatusChanger. It is of low-priorty when you get back, so no rush, but I was afraid it would go entirely unnoticed for the fore mentioned reasons. Thank you. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Upload logs

I wish to bring to somebody's attention a technical error I believe I've discovered regarding the image logs. In my Wikipedia user statistics at Xtools, is a column on the left hand side: "Pages", followed by "Files". Clicking on the Files uploaded (Commons) number pulls up that log without issue. However, Clicking on the Files uploaded number for Wikipedia files, pulls up a blank log. This blank log contains the line:
"Deleted files are not shown here but are included in the upload log."

The latter Wikipedia log shows all of my Wikipedia uploads—live and deleted—while the former Wikipedia log shows nothing at all? — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@CJDOS: This question is a little out of scope for the help me tag as it deals with tools. However, looking on The XTools page on Meta, bugs should be filed on Phabricator - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 09:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have created the bug task. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

21 November 2021

Moved to Talk:EWI (musical instrument)

Hello. Article EWI (musical instrument) has undergone some recent edits, which to me reads like a promotion. In review, I felt that Eboshakey's edits did not contribute to the article, and reverted them (checking each before deciding to revert all). Said user disagrees with my observations. In order to avoid an edit war, I have declined from reverting again. I would like an uninvolved opinion on what improvements or changes to the article should be made. I have left a message on Eboshakey's talk page regarding the inappropriate edit summaries left, and questionable article content.
Thank you for your assistance. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

This is an ordinary content dispute and should be discussed on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

CJDOS, thank you for seeking out a third opinion. I declined your request, as there does not appear to have been substantive discussion related to the dispute. If you continue to discuss at Talk:EWI (musical instrument), the discussion doesn't reach consensus, and no other editors get involved, it would be appropriate for you to relist at WP:3O. Thanks again, Firefangledfeathers 05:18, 23 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) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"Bare URL" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bare URL and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 10#Bare URL until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi CJDOS! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Template:Committed identity topicon, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Committed identity topicon

A discussion is taking place at Template talk:Committed identity topicon#RfC 8 January 2022, which is best summarized by the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/Jan 2022#Committed identity topicon orientation request:

Among other uses, Crypto key.svg is being used as a top icon. Concerns have been raised at Template talk:Committed identity topicon#RfC 8 January 2022 that Crypto key.svg in its present orientation, should be displayed at 35 pixel in order to vertically match other top icons, e.g. Template:Extended confirmed topicon. Displayed as a top icon, Crypto key.svg in its horizontal orientation would be too difficult to see if reduced to 20 px. This has resulted in more concerns about the key being displayed at 35 px, horizontally longer than Template:Top icon's 20 pixel default. The general agreement is that a diagonal orientation is best suited for a key shaped image when used as a top icon, which will result in a top icon that is closer to the desired default size while being still visually identifiable. You are also invited to contribute to the fore mentioned discussion; thank you. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

While it seemed like an agreement was being reached, progress has stalled. I think it is clear that the current editors are not prepared for the technical requirements of submitting new svg images to be voted on. I'm using outdated hardware, because that's what I have available; I can't manipulate svg files.

I am writing:

• To request an univolved editor to conduct the discussion, and revert non-consensual changes to the template's image.
• To ask for assistance in getting more opinions at the discussion, and perhaps some of those editors may be able to submit images of their own for voting (much appreciated if Graphics Lab request can be responded to).
• To inquire if template protection of some kind be considered in order to promote edit discussions.

Thank you for your assistance. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

A {{help me}} tag is really meant more for one-off issues with using Wikipedia, not requesting closure of a discussion (which is done at Wikipedia:Closure requests) If you're looking for more technical advice or opinions, you should post this at the Technical Village Pump. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Primefac. I'm not asking for discussion closer—just the opposite—I'm asking for more involvement... and someone not involved to take over the task of officiating the discussion. I was hoping to avoid using the Pump/Teahouse, as I've not had good luck there with previous unrelated requests. I guess I'll have to give them a try. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Handy Boy ad for original Game Boy.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Handy Boy ad for original Game Boy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Oinkers42) (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Handy Boy ad for original Game Boy.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Zxcvbnm, for the notification; I've experienced this before, with 1980s PC game box art becoming orphaned on Wikipedia. I would like to save the image for future use by moving the file to commons:Category:Joyplus Handy Boy for Nintendo Game Boy. However, the Commons Exporter says that can't be done because of a hidden revision (the original image dimensions). Should I re-upload the original file to Commons, since Commons does not require the image to be used in a Wikipedia article? Any other thoughts? — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, the advertisement is not allowed on Commons due to it being non-free media. Unless there is some manner of exemption it wouldn't be allowed to remain on Wikipedia servers due to copyright laws - that always prioritize finding a freely licensed replacement. If the image was a magazine ad, perhaps it would be preserved within an archived copy of said magazine somewhere. But if you were going to single out the ads for display, it would have to be on an independent website rather than Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in regards to the closed discussion, Zxcvbnm. Our internet here has been down for several days, and we just got it turned back on today. I have no issue with WP:NOTBURO. The user who raised the concern could be bold and just change the image without calling me to a discussion, but it was courteous of them to inform me since I had uploaded the ad image. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Unwanted bot-creation of user talk pages in other languages

Hello, Billinghurst. Over at m:User talk:Praxidicae (history), you kindly deleted my unwanted bot-created Fiji Hindi user talk page. I've been notified a short time ago that it:Discussioni utente:CJDOS was created for me because I had viewed a link through a Wikidata page (d:Q459403). I would like to ask for my Italian user talk page to be deleted, as I have not performed any edits to the Italian Wikipedia.

I really wish users would have a preference option to block bots from spawning user talk pages. When I haven't edited that language project, there's no reason for a bot to create a user talk page on my behalf. Where should I suggest such a Wikipedia global improvement? — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You will need to ask that question at the wiki in question. I acted as that was a global sysop wiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:47, 26 July 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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Village in India

I take your point and accept the reversion. Fair enough. But it was a good faith edit. Irrespective that there's an RM going on. The unfortunate correct spelling per WP:RS sources and real signage needs to be visible on the dab page. And probably all those pages need page protection from vandals. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I concur with the page protection. I had made a temporary semi-protection request for Talk:Sugar Mama because of social invitations on the talk page. My request was denied, as the spam comments weren't frequent enough; that may be the case here. The other points I'll address at Talk:Punanai#Requested move 22 March 2023, but as a general comment. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposing deletion of a redirect

Hello. I couldn't find an appropriate tag, or a page for nomination of File:Doom-boxart.jpg for deletion. To be clear, I am proposing the deletion of only the redirect, not the target. The redirect has only creation history (no move history), and no talk page; the target file doesn't need this redirect to it. {{Proposed deletion}} reads like it applies to a file rather than a redirect to a file. The redirect seems to fall under WP:NOTCSD#14 of non-criteria for speedy deletion. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RFD. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

There are also a number of pages containing links to that redirect. Redirects are cheap; whatever the reason it was originally created, however weak, you'd probably need to overcome that with some policy-based reason more persuasive than "I don't think this redirect is needed". You could try the angle that all of these uses fail to be fair-use of a non-free image. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies, Random person no 362478479 and Jmcgnh. I didn't see any usage of the redirect when I first looked, but at your prompting, I looked deeper and found where, how, and why it's being used. Thank you for the WP:RfD link – that's what I was looking for; much appreciated. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hello, Spintendo. As this part of the conversation from Template talk:Anthropology of kinship#Edit request on 25 June 2023 is off-topic, I brought it here. Thank you for the compliments on my userboxes. I find the difficult part is the image licenses. I have some more userboxes in mind that I haven't got around to working on. My whole user page will eventually be redone, and I have a user-status light project in mind (see /sandbox). I work in retail outside of Wikipedia, so I don't have the dedicated time I need to devote to it. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Xorcist for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Xorcist, 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/Xorcist 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) 01:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Unvisited Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia

I recently received an alert that a message from HitomiAkane was left for me on my Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia talk page arz:User_talk:CJDOS, despite never having visited an Arabic Wikipedia. I'm getting tired of pages being spam-created for me on other Wikipedia language sites that I have not visited – neither logged in nor out. Who do I talk to about deleting the aforementioned talk page, but more importantly, how do I obtain the global account rights to block user/talk pages being created for me on any Wikipedia language without visiting that site?

I have served the offending user a cease and desist warning, but I feel the template used wasn't intended for this circumstance. I want the spam-creation of user talk pages globally squashed. Where do I submit such a proposal (and recommend creation of an appropriate warning template)?

Sites where I do have activity are currently listed at User:CJDOS#Antecedents. Please escalate/forward my complaint as necessary; thank you. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

A few years ago, all usernames were made global, meaning that they work across all Wikimedia Foundation projects; previously, one had to register a username on each individual project. One consequence of that is as you describe- probably what happened is that someone linked to a page you had edited for some reason, which triggered the system to detect that you "visited" it even though you didn't (as stated on Meta, "and automatically creating your local account when you visit a wiki you've never visited before."). It wasn't a deliberate spamming and it's doubtful that you were deliberately targeted. I've received many such messages. The user you speak of seems to primarily edit the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, they have over a million edits to it, but only 300ish here.

I know of no way to prevent this from occurring, and the presence of these user talk pages has no impact on your account. It actually protects you since it will prevent someone else from creating an account in your username on a different language Wikipedia. As for deletion that would not solve this issue as it would likely occur again should a similar situation recur, though you would have to ask at that language Wikipedia with regards to their deletion policy; here user talk pages are not usually deleted. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

You would probably need to direct complaints about this to the Meta-Wiki(see my link in my first sentence above). 331dot (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, 331dot. That sounds logical, since I've never visited said project (I can't read Arabic script), even though User:HitomiAkane insists that I have. I will escalate this issue myself, as said user has not mentioned any attempt to un-create the page, nor an offer to block its future creation. I will also address this issue at the Meta level, accepting that if the problem is worked on, it may be a long time before it is fully resolved. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@331dot thank you, As I told @CJDOS I'm a SYSOB on arz.wiki and I saw the new user log, and we always sends new users a courtesy welcome message as the new visitors get confused and think it is the Arabic Wikipedia, we didn't created the user account nor we can delete a user, I don't insist that you've visited arz.wiki, I only show you the log, which tells me that a new user account was created! please remember that you can't uncreate a user on Wikipedia, have a nice day. HitomiAkane (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I would just gently add that you aren't the first person this has happened to and won't be the last- it's just the way the system is set up. However, if no one says anything, they can't change it, so again, please discuss it on Meta(as you already seem like you will do). Good luck. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I have reported this as two issues, each to their respective locations. First: I'm told that this is a known bug, and Phabricator manifest T353115 has been linked with the related manifest T201477. I'm told that this particular instance is likely because information from the English Wikipedia page was copied to the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, including the edit history. Thus, I never visited the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, but it recorded that I had. Secondly: There is a discussion history at Meta in which a hif.wikipedia user talk page that had been created for me was deleted per my request by Billinghurst. If I'm reading the various messages correctly about the current issue, each language Wikipedia may have a unique set of rules, and so the ability (or willingness) to revert the creation of a user talk page may not apply elsewhere, even if its existence is a discourtesy to editors who can't read the language. In short, because my request was able to be fulfilled in the past, does not mean it can be fulfilled now. Alternatively, policies may have changed since my first request was fulfilled, but that hasn't been mentioned, so I wouldn't be aware of it. As a final note: If I were to make a talk page deletion request at Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, that would mean that I have visited the site while logged-in, and performed an edit, thus negating my reason for its deletion (catch-22). — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

enWP makes and enforces their rules, arzWP makes and enforces theirs, and so on. When there is no local admins, then the global sysops can lend limited support. I was providing some information at metawiki and there was no need to draw me into the battle. I would discourage you from doing that again.

You can argue semantics about visiting arzWP all you want. You can focus on the perceived problem, or you can focus on a possible solution. That is all up to you. A talk page is a talk page, nothing more. In the end it means nothing. As a grown-up, I will let you work it out, and there is no further need to include me in the conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

"When there is no local admins, then the global sysops can lend limited support." That was the bit of information I needed; thank you. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)