User talk:PBS
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Wikipedia newsEdit
20 March 2023 |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).
|
|
- Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
- Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
- A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.
- Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
- The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
- A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.
- The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
- Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
- The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a
[p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing
. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023. - The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.
Please see message at User_talk:PBS-AWB
Message from User_talk:PBS-AWB
|
---|
Your change on Edward Raban (printer) was a poor decision. You removed a template which added "This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain" to two references, and added to both a template saying "One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from this source". Each of the references was used about 5 times in the body of the article. "One or more of the preceding sentences" is plain inaccurate for most of the uses of the reference. "This article incorporates text " is accurate for all uses of the reference. Further, your message preceded the reference, which is grossly suboptimal: users want to read the ref, not a (mainly inaccurate) RD incorporation notice. The notice should follow the reference, not precede it. I don't know what you thought you were doing, but your edits did degrade the article in two respects, did not do anything at all useful. Reverted. Please do not do that again. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
|
In other news, if you really do not want people to leave messages on that page, maybe redirect it to this page. Your notice there is too little, too late & you're putting other users to trouble for no good reason. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know about the history of the template and what consensus there is regarding the closure of the TfD and whether it should be a redirect or a wrapper template, but since you removed the redirect, please also update the template documentation and restore the documentation in the template source, so that other editors coming upon it (e.g. after seeing your AWB edits) have an idea what it's supposed to do and how it should be used. Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Edits to DOY articlesEdit
I have reverted two edits by your PBS-AWB bot to the DOY articles August 18 and April 8. The convention established at WP:DOYSTYLE is that the characters – are to be used rather than any other types of dash. Can you please modify your bot to take this into account? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Non-sovereign nation for deletionEdit
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-sovereign nation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Claud Hamilton, 1st Lord PaisleyEdit
Dear [[User:PBS|PBS}}. Please have a look at the use of the Wikisource EB11 citations in the article Claud Hamilton, 1st Lord Paisley. It is an example for the case that two different EB articles are cited in the same Wikipedia article and the corresponding EB11 volumes were published in different years. So I first thought I could use 1910 and 1911, but errors are thrown that seem to indicate that 1910 is considered an error. I then tried 1911a and 1911b as User:ArbieP had done before, but an error "CS1 maint: date and year" is thrown. Why? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter messageEdit
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) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Let's take a trip back to Spring 2005Edit
Hi, so I was looking at the redirects to Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II and found that Middle East Theatre of World War II existed. I had a look at it and noticed that a little earlier this month an IP user attempted to redirect it [1] to the former article because it was "an unsourced duplicate". I completed the redirect today by blanking the content, then noticed that you were present during the creation of both just about 18 years ago. Was creating the redirect the right move, or no? This is not a topic that I normally edit. Cheers, Dawnseeker2000 23:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)