Open main menu


Disambiguation link notificationsEdit

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

My content creator's to-do list has items so old they've grown moldEdit I moved them to the /Content to-do items subpage. Someday maybe I'll get to these... Wbm1058 (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Proposed MergersEdit

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

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

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

Adding permalinks to block log entries for 3RREdit

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

Cross-namespace redirectsEdit

Deep gratitudeEdit

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

You're welcome. One final push to clear most of the rest, and then it will be time to take a break. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Break? Whassat?!   – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Just a note that Category:Redirects to user namespace is significantly underpopulated. I was working off the list at User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects to further populate it, and worked my way through the A's. It's on my patrol list, so I may get to it eventually. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    I finally used AWB to populate Category:Redirects to user namespace; it now has over 900 members. My technique was to Make list from source Special page: All Redirects in namespace Wikipedia: – the category hasn't yet been fully populated for other namespaces. I think all of the cross-namespace redirect categories can and should eventually be populated by bots... AWB may be able to do that with a sufficiently sophisticated configuration. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
    See HERE for the regex find & replace used for this. I manually monitored this and had to skip some that were already rcat templated; also may have missed some. wbm1058 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
    Or the database query method used to generate User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects may be a more efficient method than my AWB special page walk-through. I need to figure out how to do that myself. @Paine Ellsworth: FYI. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping, Wbm1058! That's pretty cool stuff you're doing – and waay outside my full comprehension. Please keep up the great work!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  15:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)



Hi Wbm1058,

You asked a while ago about how many editors were using VisualEditor each month, rather than the each-day stats that are given on the dashboard. It appears that the most recent answer is that a bit under 1800 editors here at the English Wikipedia saved an edit with VisualEditor during the month of June. This represents about 5% of the people who have (ever) opted in to VisualEditor (most of whom are not currently active editors) and almost 1.5% of all registered editors who made any edit at all last month.

@Risker:, you might be interested in these numbers, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Wbm1058,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Setting magic wordsEdit

I've done some analysis of VisualEditor's setting of behavior switches, see the archived discussion. I intend to follow up on this. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate template parametersEdit

Your edits reverted my fix to remove duplicate parameters and these files will soon be placed in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. I'm not watching them, nor am I watching this page, so I leave it to you to fix the issues. --  Gadget850 talk 22:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gadget850: Right, already taken care of. See Template talk:Non-free use rationale logo#Override fields. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
To do: possible merge of {{Non-free use rationale}} and {{Non-free use rationale 2}}
Non-free media information and use rationale for Test article





Test article

Portion used


Low resolution?

{{{Low resolution}}}

Purpose of use




Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Test article//
Media data and Non-free use rationale
Author or
copyright owner
Source (WP:NFCC#4) Myself
Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) Test article
Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8)
Not replaceable with
free media because
Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3)
Respect for
commercial opportunities
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Test article//

For that matter, {{Non-free use rationale 2}} and {{Non-free use rationale logo}} are also somewhat redundant, as show by the usage of both here. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Module documentation and test casesEdit

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

Module:Syrian Civil War map is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded.
I edited Module:Syrian Civil War map/doc, and created Module:Syrian Civil War map/testcases.
Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War used to transclude {{Syrian Civil War detailed map}}, until substituted.
Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map loads Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map.
Template:Syrian Civil War map (created 21 February 2015‎) . . . Wbm1058 (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


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

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


  Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

So many things needing fixed, so little time time get to more than a fraction of them, sigh. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of DOS operating systemsEdit

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

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

Race Against the MachineEdit

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

A main thesis of the book is that accelerating technology improvements will reduce employment, and over time this will effect more higher-skilled occupations. We see this already with jobs coming back to the US from China... because they are replacing people with bots. Yes, a few more jobs for Americans who are skilled at bot development, operations and maintenance. But way fewer jobs than were displaced in China. Of course, at Wikipedia there are relatively few editors that work for money. We already have very intelligent bots such as ClueBot NG that help tremendously with tasks such as vandalism reversion. That one has over 4 million edits now! Bots also help with spelling corrections. There could be further enhancements to these tasks that could reduce the need for new page patrollers and spelling correctors. Time scale is dependent on volunteer contributions, or possible funding by the Wikimedia Foundation. wbm1058 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The future seems to be coming at us pretty fast. I try to stay informed-but-neutral. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Birth dates in biographies and California Law AB-1687Edit

Here's an interesting news item: California Enacts Law Requiring IMDb to Remove Actor Ages on Request

I participated in an interesting conversation about this here. I'd be interested in hearing from others who are interested in this. What do you think? wbm1058 (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of actors and birth dates... Can we remove the birth date from Vanessa Ferlito's page or lock it? Plenty of public sources cite 1977 yet someone (probably her PR) keeps reverting it back to 1980. IMDB doesn't fall in line. Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Right, thanks. I don't like to see stuff I archived as resolved keep coming back as an issue. I see the TV Guide bio doesn't have a birth date anymore, while in my archive I reported that it did. I think pending changes protection is in order, as relying on watchlisting isn't giving us timely reversions. wbm1058 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Templates for deletion for deletionEdit

Implement multiple parameters to prefix: operator on fulltext searchesEdit

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

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

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

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 61 § is there a way to search several sections with one search? – June 10–17, 2009
And User talk:Rainman § modification to search several Wikipedian sections at one time – June 15–17, 2009
And User talk:Stmrlbs/Archive/001 § multiple prefixes – June 15–17, 2009
June 17, 2009 Help:Searching documentation update, alas documentation of this multiple-prefixes-separated-by-pipes feature was removed on October 11, 2009 when this was rewritten, to try to improve usability
"To search multiple sections of Wikipedia with different prefixes, enter the different prefixes with a pipe delimiter."
"This should be especially useful for archive searching in concert with inputbox or searchbox."
@Cpiral: so clearly prefix did at least briefly take pipes. Unfortunately, the volunteer developer of that, Rainman, isn't active any more either, and I haven't been able to locate his code changes that implemented that feature. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the history lesson. Interesting. Maybe useful.
Anyway, for now we have wp:deletion process#Search all deletion discussions. Hope that helps. — Cpiral§Cpiral 07:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

History mergingEdit

Category:Possible cut-and-paste movesEdit

I saw your comment at category talk:Possible cut-and-paste moves. That's really interesting. So, Mikaey had himswlf requested the category to emptied. What's more, the task is even listed as a potential ine for AarghBot at its user page. So, why are u wasting ur time decatting pages manually? Why don't u nominate it for deletion. As u must be aware, Cydebot automatically empties all categories upon a CFD discussion closing with consensus to delete. Here, it's almost a G7 case - I don't see why anyone would object to the cat being deleted. Most of the entries are false positives and the ones wbich aren't are alrady listed at WP:WPHM. (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Five months after I made those comments, it was nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 12#Category:Possible cut-and-paste moves. I missed that discussion, which happened when I went on my summer break. Sigh, none of those voting keep are helping to clear it. I did an edit summary search and found that when I was last working this backlog on October 30, 2015 I got as far alphabetically as Rakim & Ken-Y (Ke) and when I resumed on January 19, 2017 the first one I did was Kadar Khan (Kh) so substantially nobody else has been working this in a meaningful way. I've been trying to find a way to more efficiently clear this. Cats for discussion is an area that I'm not very active in. wbm1058 (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
FInally, after slogging through this on-and-off for the past ~four months, this piece is   Done! – wbm1058 (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I see you made a somewhat related bot request, Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot for category history merges. I've thought about the possibility of admin-bots helping out with hist-merges in article-space, and a bot doing hist-merges in category-space probably wouldn't be all that different. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Merge bot 2

For an adminbot that's good to perform hundreds of thousands of admin actions, your BRFA, I apologise, is quite lacklustre. (I just fixed a big typo) I would suggest that you expand the function overview to completely describe everything the bot's gonna do. You see, you have to convince the BAG that you are responsible and capable of running a bot with advanced permissions. (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I am sure that Od Mishehu wanted you to revdelete cydebot's edit summary only when it contains the name of a now-vanished user. If the bot can't recognize such users or if it's too much trouble to implement, I'd suggest leaving out that part altogether. I personally don't see the need for doing that at all, since the vanished user's original username can anyway be known by looking at their rename log or just by reading the signatures on their talk page. In any case, revdeleting all of Cydebot's edit summaries makes no sense. (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my little mistake. I guess I was a little tired when I wrote that up. I trust that whichever BAG member reviews this will also read the longer linked bot-request page discussion, and ask me any questions they have. I'll just wait to see what questions they have, and then answer them. Some thought my self-nomination for RFA was lacklustre too, but I still managed to pass that. Regarding the revdeletes, I believe the thinking there is that we want to hide them preemptively in case anyone wants to vanish in the future. If not, then I'll need a list of usernames to check for, to determine which ones to hide. I think the idea is to make it harder to find vanished users. Also the list in the edit summary isn't necessary because all of the users named in it would now be in the merged edit history. But I'm ambivalent about the need to hide the edit summaries. You can bring that up on the bot requests or BRFA page to see whether there is consensus for hiding or not hiding. Hundreds of thousands, I guess you're right: 87,000 × 4 = 348,000. I'm sure the BAG will ask for shorter trial runs before they let me unleash it at full-throttle. wbm1058 (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

fixed another typo. (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


Your bot task has been approved for an extended trial. See here for details. Please take special note of the extended pause due to the lack of bot flag during the trial. Let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for your work. ~ Rob13Talk 03:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Cats about 1921-1922 in TurkeyEdit

I see you have directed cat:1921-1922 establishments in Turkey to Cat:1921-1922 establishments in the Ottoman Empire. Well that requires some consideration. After 23 April 1920 the Ottoman Empire and Turkey were different states with different constitutions and different governments. It is true that the Republic was proclainmed in 1923, but even before the proclamation of the Republic, Turkey was a soverign state independent of the Ottoman Empire. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

These automated administrative actions were performed as part of the bot trial authorized in the section above. All I did was to history-merge categories which had previously been renamed. wbm1058 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  1. Category:1920 disestablishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1920 disestablishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:11:32Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:11:37Z (5)
  2. Category:1915 disestablishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1915 disestablishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:11:18Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:11:27Z (9)
  3. Category:1914 disestablishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1914 disestablishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:11:08Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:11:13Z (5)
  4. Category:1913 disestablishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1913 disestablishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:10:57Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:11:03Z (6)
  5. Category:1912 disestablishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1912 disestablishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:10:46Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:10:52Z (6)
  6. Category:1909 disestablishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1909 disestablishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:10:35Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:10:41Z (6)
  7. Category:1922 establishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1922 establishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:10:15Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:10:31Z (16)
  8. Category:1921 establishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1921 establishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:09:56Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:10:10Z (14)
  9. Category:1920 establishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1920 establishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:09:24Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:09:51Z (27)
  10. Category:1919 establishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1919 establishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:09:13Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:09:19Z (6)

Bot task approvedEdit

Your recent bot task has been   Approved. Please see detailed comments at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Merge bot 2. Your bot should receive the sysop flag shortly. ~ Rob13Talk 15:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Flagging has been complete. Please note, your bot account now qualifies for WP:2FA which I strongly recommend. You can use BotPasswords or OAUTH authentication to limit your bot's administrative permissions to the ones needed for the task. Once this task is completed, the +sysop flag should no longer be required and you can notify WP:BN to remove it. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 15:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  The Technical Barnstar
For operating Merge bot._

Marvellous Spider-Man 15:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Those missing templatesEdit

Hi Wbm1058

I'm guessing that it was this edit[1] by you which produced the flurry of Category:ISO 639 name xyz-type categories currently listed at Special:WantedCategories. Is that right?

If so, is there any guidance on how to create them? It would be handy to have them cleared before the next update of Special:WantedCategories brings in another flood of new stuff. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Right, this was my clunky attempt to solve a problem. See Template talk:ISO 639 name#Return empty string for codes not on the list. Sorry about cluttering up WantedCategories; that was a side-effect that I didn't think of. These categories are not actually supposed to be created, but rather templates with the same name. The idea was to avoid degrading the reader experience by showing redlink-templates, but provide an easier way for patrolling editors to find the problem. I guess I should revert that, but it would be nice to replace it with a better solution, if we can come up with one. wbm1058 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, my post was a bit unclear. What I meant was: any guidance on how to create the templates? I'd be happy to help if I knew how.
This looks fine as a way of getting a list of needed templates. But now that Special:WantedCategories has created the list, it would be helpful if the template could stop generating these categories, prferably before the next update (which is likely on 11 April or 12 April).
I have gotten a it of practice at quickly grabbing a categ list from the oddly-formatted Special:WantedCategories, so I made a list of the ISO 639 categs, at User:Wbm1058/ISO 639 categs. I hope that helps; if it's a nuisance, pls delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, this is kind of like the blind leading the blind to repair issues caused by other blind. There is Category:Articles containing unknown ISO 639 language template, which was created by Jonesey95. Then there is also Category:Lang-x templates with other than ISO 639. Some editors have used these "language" templates for dialects of languages that do not have ISO 639 codes, thus the attempts of templates to look up ISO 639 codes fail with errors implying an ISO 639 template needs to be created. Well, there is none to be created. My solution for cases like that is edits like THIS and THIS. We need to sort these dialect "languages" out from the real languages that actually have ISO 639 codes where a template really does need to be created. I'm not an expert in any of this, and got involved with it when the new Category:Pages with template loops was created, and that snagged the poor design of these "language" templates. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 154#Category:Pages with template loops for background on what led me into this rabbit-hole. Template:Language with name and Template:Lang were never intended to be used for dialects, but how can we expect editors other than the ones who designed these templates to know that? – wbm1058 (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
What an almighty mess. My immediate question is to ask what purpose this whole system serves, and whether any of this necessary? I know little about the topic, so I make no attempt to try answering that pair of questions ... but I do think that when something gets so complex, it's time to re-evaluate the cost-benefit ratios.
I'm afraid that I have neither the skills to get that deep into these templates nor the inclination to do so, so I think i'd better withdraw my offer to help. Sorry!
In the meantime, please could you revert the edit which populated the categs? It does seem to have served its purpose, and the ongoing slog of clearing the 100–200 daily additions to Special:WantedCategories is impeded by these categs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
BrownHairedGirl, you are wise to move on to somewhere that makes more sense. The whole lang template system is a bit of a mess and in need of a rethink. In the meantime, I am slowly (five weeks so far) clearing out the errors and creating needed templates based on Category:Articles containing unknown ISO 639 language template. I should be done in a couple of weeks.
In answer to your "what purpose this whole system serves", tagging text with {{lang}} can affect how the enclosed text is rendered. It also adds a tracking category, which may be useful to some editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure edits like this are the optimal solution – whether something is a language or a dialect is irrelevant, we want the text string to be formatted properly and bypassing {{Language with name}} doesn't help with that. I've had a look at User:Wbm1058/ISO 639 categs and most of these appear to either contain typos (in which case they need to be fixed in the specific pages that use the lang template), or to be of the type aaa-Bbb, which is the format for the language (aaa) + script(Yyyy) combination. Pinging Erutuon whom I've seen working on this. – Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I am working on Category:Articles containing unknown ISO 639 language template and expect to have it mostly cleared out in a few days. When I started a month ago, there were something like 2,000 pages in the category. It's down to 332 right now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I would replace all the templates with modules. The module could check to see if the code string is valid character-wise – either xyz or xyz-Abcd – using regular expressions. It could also check if the script and language codes are correct using the MediaWiki language library or a data module that lists language codes. And it could create linked language names by adding the articles as an entry in the data module. Wiktionary does all this language-related stuff using modules (see wikt:Module:languages, wikt:Module:scripts, wikt:Module:script utilities). I've begun such a module at Module:Language (see also Module:Language/scripts/data), though it does not currently do everything mentioned here. — Eru·tuon 18:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds great to me. I see that you have already seen this discussion from six months ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
If you need any help, you can ask for it at Wikipedia:Lua/To do. While I've self-taught myself enough PHP to support two bots and even write one from scratch, I've yet to make time to study Lua, so I can only do so much with that. wbm1058 (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

George, I wouldn't know how to write a script to change the interface, and I'm not keen on switching between two less-than-ideal interfaces. There should only need be one, fully-functional interface that's adequate for efficiently handling all use cases. What we have now is not such an interface, and we should focus on getting that one improved. I'm frustrated with the current means of interacting with the developers – there is a confusing array of different "phabricators" on this, I'm not keen on the phabricator editing interface, and I don't know whether I should add to an existing phab or start a new one, so I prefer using Village Pump where I can use Wikitext. As I need to use this interface to perform specific tasks, I may report issues I have with the current interface that make it more difficult to get the job done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... How about Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), where we can discuss the user contributions interface? --George Ho (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe. But, per "defines a solution rather than a problem" I don't know if solutions developed in the idea lab would be welcomed by the developers. I'm not happy with the "handcuffs" placed on us with regard to modes of interaction with developers. Maybe if I just present problems to WP:VPT, and let them either tell me how to achieve my desired result, or make changes to the interface that allow me to achieve my desired result. wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
No offense, but IMO I don't think WP:VPT is a place for general feedback on any software or something. VPT is used for technical difficulties, bugs, glitches, and other tech issues that need immediate attention (not sure whether I phrased it correctly). One complaint describing none of these, and they'll either advise you to write a personal script/gadget or write one for you as they did before. But you're welcome to choose any appropriate venue. I still think the "idea lab" is best bet. --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
At the top of WP:VPT there is a notice "Bug reports and feature requests should be made in Phabricator" but that's just redirecting us back to an interface I find less than ideal. I don't understand why they have such an aversion to Wikitext. I think that's easiest as all active editors are intimately familiar with it. Almost everything the developers in general try to pawn off as "easier" to use, I find to be more of a pain. But venue should be secondary to getting the issues raised, so if you want to start an idea lab thread, feel free. wbm1058 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, I just realized that you can go to meta:Tech and then post your concerns there. The developers changed the interface all over the wikis. --George Ho (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I see, meta:Tech#"Search for contributions" date range. So, let's let the latest bug fix settle in before we try using it again. That page seems like a good place for reporting issues with the Special:Contributions interface, as I hate to go to the trouble to submit a new bug report, only to find that one's already been submitted. wbm1058 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Old rfd on talk pagesEdit

Hi and thank you for your help at RfD, it's appreciated! Just a note though, that after a discussion is closed, nowadays it's usually expected from the closer to place the {{Old rfd}} note on the talk page (of course, unless the redirect was deleted). If you use the XFDcloser script, it will do that for you. – Uanfala 12:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware that there was a script for that! wbm1058 (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Its capabilities were relatively recently extended to RfD. It's quite useful and saves a lot of work, especially if there are several redirects and the outcome is the same for all of them. – Uanfala 13:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation)Edit

Can you look into the "Update Redirect" discussion on the Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation) page. I don't like where User:Shaded0 is taking this discussion.--Limpscash (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you look at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RAF910 discussion where User:Shaded0 is making some very serious accusations. He tried to ping you but I don't think it worked.--Limpscash (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent articles on the noticeboard page and the talk page discussions. I am at a bit of a loss on what the correct action should be taken next. The stated points seem to be reasonable arguments, but I feel like this argument is going to keep going in circles. Take a look also at Talk:Colt AR-15. Does it make sense continue pursing AR-15 arguments, seek additional input? I feel like I might have not too much to add here besides another vote for consensus, but any further discussion seems that it will likely further inflame opinions rather than coming to some sort of resolution. Shaded0 (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Shaded0, I'm not sure what your goals are here, i.e. specifically what you would like to accomplish. I added the {{WikiProject content advice}} template at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms § Guidelines since that advice section co-mingles both style and content advice. My sense is that you are more concerned with content than style, so it might be helpful to spit that section into separate style and content sections, if you want to focus on one but not the other. Looking at Category:WikiProject content advice I see that there are relatively few topic areas where such content-specific advice is given. I think the recent changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms § Criminal use were not well thought out and too-hastily pushed through. I prefer the more longstanding previous version of that advice, and would have opposed this change. I'd like to revert to the former version. I suppose the way to overrule that local consensus would be to appeal to a wider audience with a request for comment. I'm not sure there is a well-trodden path for such appeals; it's something I'm not that familiar with as I don't often engage in high-level content debates. In any event, the Bushmaster XM-15 article still has Notoriety, Sandy Hook, and Legality sections, so if this advice-change was an attempt to remove all that in favor of nothing more than "see also" links, the advice change hasn't stuck in that article. Given that, I'm not sure how much time it's worth to pursue this. wbm1058 (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


We are being targeted by someone call Lightbreather on Twitter. Please see the sites below:

I'm not sure what to make of this. Is this the same Wikipedia User:Lightbreather that has been blocked?--Limpscash (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I had not seen that blog. I've heard of LB but am not familiar with the details of her block. She says she's a Cronkite School alumna, and I can believe that as it shows in the quality of her blog. I welcome good criticism, and she makes some good points. No comment on the merits of her arbitration case, but, in general it's a shame when we lose editors like this for whatever reason.
Here's the 36 edits I made on November 7 related to this. It's not immediately apparent from that how I became involved in this. I patrol Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review. This 6 November 2017 edit which changed the target of AR-15 caused Colt AR-15 to land in that category by rendering its hatnote {{Redirect|AR-15}} untruthful. When I work that category, I determine how to fix it; usually that's done with only an edit or two – it's an unusual case where I end up making as many as 36 edits to correct a navigation structure that's so badly munged. LB helps explain how it got that way. This was just the beginning of my involvement in this topic area to date. A couple days later, in respose to #Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation), I made 7 more edits. Then a comment that basically wrapped up an AN/I incident.
All of this participation is time-consuming. I'm not exactly happy with the status quo, there seems a strong case that AR-15 has become a genericized trademark, and that "modern sporting rifle" is an invented term designed to forestall that genericization. So LB shouldn't take my edits as an endorsement of the status quo. I'm keeping this on my back burner. wbm1058 (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please take noteEdit

Greetings! I have re-copied your prior comment supporting or opposing the move of Modern sporting rifle to AR-15 style rifle to a new Requested Move section here: Talk:Modern sporting rifle#Requested move 22 February 2018.

I wanted to stop by and give you this courtesy notice, in case you want to add, delete, or amend your comments in any way. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


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

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

Hello wbmEdit

Hi Wbm, hope you're doing well. I noticed you declined the move I had requested. I have initiated a discussion at Talk:Synchronised_swimming#Making Artistic swimming the primary article for any opposes to the proposed move. I shall contact you again in a week or so if there's no opposition. Warmly, Lourdes 03:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

TOC experimentsEdit

I tried putting it after the first paragraph. That seems to be the best look. Free-roaming horse management in North America Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Scheduled monuments in MendipEdit

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

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

Ohio Wikimedians User Group: April 2019 newsletterEdit

General Updates

  • To facilitate casual conversations between members, we now have a   Facebook group! If you're on Facebook, feel free to request to join.
  • Kevin has prepared a 2019 Activities Rapid Grant to support our user group's activities through the end of the year. This includes funding for edit-a-thons, Wikipedia Connection activities at Ohio State, and other potential events. Please give it a review, and provide endorsements at the bottom and/or comments on the talk page. If you would like to plan an activity or can think of something that could be funded that isn't already included, please bring it up! The goal is to have the grant submitted for review early in the week.
  • Our membership list has been revamped and supports the addition of new details (such as name, picture, location, and titles). Members are welcome to update their entry if they wish (all details are optional).

Movement Strategy

  • Sam (PonyToast) and Maria (Rimmel.Edits) have signed up to serve as our Organized Groups Strategy Liaisons; through December, Strategy Liaisons will act as a conduit for ideas, questions, and updates between the Movement Strategy and organized groups such as our own. Thank you to both members for taking this on!
  • The Wikimedia Summit 2019 just came to a conclusion. Maria Rimmel (Rimmel.Edits) served as our representative this year, following her work at the Ohio State University and WikiConference North America. This year's event had a heavy focus on the Movement Strategy Process and its Working Groups. Maria will be providing updates and outcomes of the conference on the user group talkpage soon - keep an eye out!

Upcoming and Ongoing Events

  • This May is the election for two Affiliate-Selected Board Seats for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The Ohio Wikimedians User Group will be eligible to cast one vote. Be on the lookout for updates on how we will decide our vote.
  • Two edit-a-thons are being hosted for Ohio State Department of Spanish and Portuguese students this month. One edit-a-thon is focusing on improving Wikipedia's coverage of female and under-representated language scientists, and the other on Latinx studies.

Recent Events

  • WikiConference North America 2018 (Oct 18-21) at the Ohio State University was a great success! Over 200 attendees (including those representing over 15 Wikimedia affiliates and 25 academic institutions) attended the 70+ sessions we had. A big thanks goes to all the event's organizers, volunteers (including those from Ohio Wikimedians), sponsors, and session hosts. View the full report (work in progress) for more details and outcomes. You can also check out the photos on the Commons.
Photos by Sixflashphoto, Geraldshields11, and Benjoneswhite.
"By doing an event like this, we can show people that you can edit; your contributions are valid; your contributions are valued. Beyond valued: necessary," Dalesio said.
  • Alden Library at Ohio University also independently hosted an Art+Feminism edit-a-thon on March 22. Check out the event page for more details. Outcomes included editing 27 articles, including the creation of a new one.
"We will be encouraging participants to use our collections to create and strengthen articles, and Library volunteers will be available help them do this effectively. In doing so, we hope to encourage participants to move beyond the role of information consumer, and to consider how they can enrich the information landscape—and maybe leave the internet a better place than they found it," Jennings stated.

Have something for the next newsletter? Add it to our May 2019 draft.

On behalf of the Ohio Wikimedians User Group, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Chaff algorithmEdit

Hi! Thanks for noticing the erroneous use of "clarify span" at "Chaff algorithm". It seems that AnomieBOT has deleted "|now" when it added the date. I consider this a bug. Do you know where to complain about it? Many thanks in advance. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jochen. Anomie is the bot operator. The notice at the top of User talk:Anomie says "If you want AnomieBOT to do something, please ask at User talk:AnomieBOT. Best, wbm1058 (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Since you pinged me, Special:Diff/891668038 should prevent that from happening again with {{clarify span}}. It's usually an error when a date or a date keyword like "now" appears as the unnamed |1= to a maintenance template, so the bot moves it to |date= by default. Anomie 12:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grand Inquisitor, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Miranda, D. Pedro II and Guarda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of CV TravelEdit


If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on CV Travel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Request For Protected User:Goodd-002 AccountEdit

Hello Sir, I want you to secure my User account so that nobody else can do so except for Confirm Abugors. Please accept my request and protect User:Goodd-002 my page so that IP users can do so much And edit allow only Administrator and Account Owner thanks. your Goodd-002 (chatme) 07:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Goodd-002. Per Wikipedia:Protection policy § User pages, base user pages (for example, the page User:Example, and not User:Example/subpage or User talk:Example) are automatically protected from creation or editing by unconfirmed and IP users. I can give you higher protection if a need exists, but the protection policy says that pages in user space should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Protect user pages by default for the community discussion about this matter. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi there. Perhaps I misread your edit summary, but I didn't "redirect a (disambiguation) to an article", I simply changed the format of the link to the dab page to the term with (disambiguation) after it, as per WP:INTDABLINK. Am I missing something? Or misinterpreting that guideline? Onel5969 TT me 22:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Onel5969: The hatnote on top of the article said "Autarchy (disambiguation)" redirects here. For the economic concept, see Autarky. There should never be a hatnote on top of an article that says something (disambiguation) redirects here; something (disambiguation) should always redirect to a disambiguation page. Autarchy (disambiguation) redirects to Autarchy. wbm1058 (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I get it now. I misread the hatnote, and thought it was saying "for other uses, see..." Not sure how I missed it, will be more careful. Onel5969 TT me 20:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)



I wondered if you could point me to a discussion on the page move: gorge -> canyon

I was mainly interested as I feel there may be more to this than meets the eye. For example this NatGeo article

Though it is sort of counter-intuitive as both the Cheddar Gorge (UK) is like a mini Grand Canyon, it was formed by collapse.

There may be more of a case from the geological definitions which I am looking into currently.

Cheers Chaosdruid (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Chaosdruid, there was no previous discussion. I didn't consider my move to be potentially controversial. These are both loanwords or loan translations in English. Canyon is from Spanish and Gorge is from French. The words are just synonyms, and canyon is the main article for Category:Canyons and gorges. My previous activity there was because this edit which turned the primary topic redirect into a disambiguation, made the hatnote on top of Canyon, "Gorge" redirects here... a "lying hatnote", which is something I patrol for. I've just made some more tweaks to help clear up any confusion – see Canyon § Etymology. Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thx for that- I thought I had seen a definition where a canyon was more u shaped than v shaped, but it was probably from an old geology book and might well be de facto out of date :¬) It is a little difficult as English English started off as French in the 11th & 12th centuries - so some words are not really loanwords, just words we used because we used to be French lol ... It confuses people when you tell them that Agincourt was actually a French on French engagement! Chaosdruid (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Companies listed on the Euronext ParisEdit


A tag has been placed on Category:Companies listed on the Euronext Paris requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz. Moved & merged to Category:Companies listed on Euronext Paris. wbm1058 (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Bill of rights pageEdit

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

  How about a Wikipedia Editors' Bill of Rights? wbm1058 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
With the current situation with Fram, that sounds like a great idea.  . Rockstonetalk to me! 19:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The RealnessEdit

Thanks for clarifying in the edit summary here. Not sure how I missed that, seeing as I made the move request that led to Realness no longer pointing there. Anyway, keep up the good work! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Global HealthEdit

Hi, actually, if there are just 2 pages to disambiguate, things should be done with a hatnote, not a separate dab page. "Global Health" should continue to be a redirect... --Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus primary topic; too many inexperienced editors use title case in infoboxes and as titles of academic departments at universities. Nobody cleaned up after these edits, because when a primary topic is assumed they aren't flagged for attention. Between 2006–2010 this redirected to the generic term. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Twisted RMEdit

Please take a look at the RM at Template talk:Infobox medical condition (new)#Requested move 3 July 2019. Is it SOP for this type of malformed RM to not end up in that section at WP:RM? Take a look at that RM's ridiculous entry at Wikipedia:Requested moves#July 3, 2019. "I am so confused!" — Vinnie BarbarinoPaine Ellsworthed. put'r there  22:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please note at this point that the nom has withdrawn and moved the template back to its previous name. Still doesn't mean I'm not confused, tho. :>) In case you didn't see it, the entry on the WP:RM page was Template:Infobox medical condition (new)Template:Infobox medical condition (new). Weird. Paine Ellsworthed. put'r there  00:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


Hi. I wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit, because it can result in no spaces being displayed. See the explanation at Template talk:Disambiguation#Template-protected edit request on 4 July 2019. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


Hi! What's going on here, I seem to have missed something? The page was nominated for G14 deletion, but was not eligible. Instead of redirecting it to the disambiguated title, which would have been obviously silly, I moved that page there instead. But I see that you've undone that, and I wondered why? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, Talk:Kaleerein (2018 TV series) was populating Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects, a category I patrol. The talk page for the disambiguation was blocking the move. I found that there was a deleted history for a disambiguation sitting under the primary topic, so I (1) moved the PT back to its disambiguated title, (2) restored the disambiguation. (3) moved the disambiguation back to the parenthetical (disambiguation) used when there is a primary topic, (4) moved the PT – and its talk page – back to the base title. I was about to tag the disambiguation with {{one other topic}}, but then you deleted it which I suppose is fine as a third topic is unlikely to show up in the short term. I also made this edit. Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


You restored Cromlêh, but then you created Cromlech as a duplicate of Cromlêh? Shouldn't Cromlêh be a redirect to Cromlech now? I'm confused.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but the citation for William Borlase didn't actually support the assertion that a cromlech is distinct from a dolmen. That, with the Wiktionary hatnote, is why I redirected it without bringing any of the content over. -Apocheir (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Apocheir, I'm not an expert on the subject either. Cromlêh is a redirect to Cromlech now. I merged some content. My participation here was triggered by this edit by Benjaminfreyart asserting that "A cromlech is not a synonym for Dolmen. It is a separate type of megalithic structure". You two may sort it out, and I will only become further involved if you want my help in moderating or if more edits are made that trigger navigation issues that I patrol for. Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


Please come help out on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for a little. (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


Was I correct to tag as CSD G2? I noticed you deleted as G7, and I was wondering why that was.

It seems clear to me that this page was eligible for speedy deletion, because it only consisted of a userspace-specific template. However, looking over the CSD more closely, it seems like it would have been appropriate for me to tag with A3.

The reason why I now think G2 might have been misguided on my part is because of intent: the page looked more like an accidental creation than an actual attempt to "test how editing" works, but I wasn't sure if intent mattered at the time I was tagging it. Retro (talk | contribs) 13:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Retro. I understand your confusion as only administrators can view deleted history. But, as showing that makes it easier for me to explain, and I see no harm from doing so, here it is:
19:34, 14 July 2019 . . سیدحبیب (talk | contribs | block) empty (←Blanked the page) Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Blanking, speedy deletion template removed, PHP7
19:26, 14 July 2019 . . Retro (talk | contribs | block) 110 bytes (Clarity.)
19:22, 14 July 2019 . . Retro (talk | contribs | block) 81 bytes (Nominating for speedy deletion: CSD G2) Tag: PHP7
18:43, 14 July 2019 . . سیدحبیب (talk | contribs | block) 20 bytes (←Created page with ' {{User page board}}') Tag: very short new article
You probably missed that the page creator blanked the page a few minutes after you tagged it for speedy deletion. I generally favor using the least potentially controversial rationale for administrative actions, and only one valid reason is needed for deletion. So while I didn't really address the issue of whether G2 (test page) was valid for this case, I will say now that I agree that G2 would have been valid in my view if the creator hadn't blanked the page they created. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Wbm1058".