User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 5

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. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Good day! Would you be able to fix the incoming links for AM/PM (album)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Just as you were adding a hatnote for AM/PM, I found where it was removed (on 17 November 2015, 18 months ago!), with the rationale "Removed advertising." Can you believe that! Sure, I'm working on it. I think a disambiguation for this is long overdue, and I don't think there is a primary topic. Too many editors can't get away from the "dictionary mindset" (but a trout for grabbing the primary topic for the album). wbm1058 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, it was

@

WP:G10 supports deletion, as a humorless attack on Trump? wbm1058 (talk

) 16:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Someone asked me about it yesterday, and I agreed that it seemed strange given it's a signpost page and was tagged for A11 - so I looked into it. I don't think it was anything big, nor did I suspect tomfooleries. I'm not sure how the user ran into those pages, nor do I remember why he asked about it. *Shrugs* ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Funny you should mention

Tom. I was just coincidentally doing maintenance work on that title: ​Tomfoolery​ at the Internet Off-Broadway Database

OK, then if there is no stronger rationale for restoring these, I'm going to delete them again. Hoping to avoid a re-ignition of this old drama-fest. wbm1058 (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Re this diff, under what circumstances is it an obstacle to page loading? On my desktop it loads a 47 KB thumbnail. —Guanaco 22:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

In my Chrome browser, it was showing me a broken image symbol. I found that by specifying a specific image size, I was able to get it to work. I used the smallest size on offer at File:StateFarmInsuranceMarkham2.jpg — wbm1058 (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Guan, my laptop, which is newer than my desktop, was able to handle it, no problem. My desktop has a lot of tabs open, and Chrome keeps giving me errors indicating I'm pushing my memory limits, I suppose. It's probably not Wikipedia's fault as I have other stuff open. But still, it would be best if the image on commons could be scaled down. I think the default thumbnail tries to load the largest image, then scale it down on the user's machine. This is the first time I've run into this particular issue recently. wbm1058 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:AD 1

Year nav/dab

Hi Wbm1058, for year nav/dab templates, I've compiled a rough list of the top candidates for changes here, if you're interested. While I was not a proponent for change in the first RfC, I remarked that I may be interested in making template changes if consensus emerges in the second RfC. Thanks for that note under the "AD" section. Anyway, just an FYI — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

While you are in {{Decades and years}}, is there any chance you can fix the "0s BC" decade to point to 9–1 BC? I think it's in /row. I'd do it, but I'm on my smartphone, and I'm too likely to make a misteak. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi

0s BC (decade) and that should redirect to 0s BC. I can't imagine doing this on a phone, but then I'm kind of a retro-grouch when it comes to phones as I'm still on a 2G phone. I know I'm gonna need to upgrade to a new phone soon though. Just need to take some time off from Wikipedia to go shopping! Don't worry about making a misteak though, you can't do that on a smartphone. That's something you get when you leave your steak on the charbroiler too long ;) Best, wbm1058 (talk

) 20:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You should be aware that this edit to {{Year by category}} broke several hundred pre-1000AD categories where people did not expect to have to set the millennium, so eg Category:128 in Roman Britain gets categorised in Category:2128 rather than Category:128. Someone seems to have fixed most of them, but might I suggest that it would make sense if you changed the default on that template to 0001 so that it behaves "naturally" when people are working before 1000AD? Le Deluge (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Thanks for letting me know. wbm1058 (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Le Deluge: Is this being used anywhere for years between AD 1 and AD 100? I'm not sure it will work correctly in that range, since those pages were moved to AD xx. wbm1058 (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't know - I had a quick look at the first few thousand and it didn't look like it, but I've not checked all 94k transclusions... I only came across it because hundreds of 2xxx categories started showing up on a red-link survey I work on, to be honest I try to avoid the year categories but you can't really avoid them when working on red-link cats! Le Deluge (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I just used

WP:AWB

to look up all 94K, then alpha-sorted them to find the needles in the haystack:

Category:23 by country, Category:23 by continent, Category:28 by country. It doesn't work for linking to Category:AD 10, but 23 looks like the first year that it's used in. Hope I didn't put too much strain on the servers; the job queue should clear these before too long, hopefully. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Cheers - I don't have AWB on this device. Anyway, all looks sorted now. Le Deluge (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Finally finished this today. 11 through 100 are all disambiguation pages now. Another item checked off my to-do list. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for editing. I saw your comment about the definition in an edit summary you wrote. The whole purpose of the article is to provide information on the scientific/medical use of the term. It is just a metric used in med journal articles and epidemiology for comparing one age group to another. Journal articles define the word. As for common usage, like you have pointed out, a wide range of terms is used to describe this age group. I don't know if this comment helps or not, but I thought you might like some kind of response to your edits. Thanks for helping make the article better.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I saw your interesting edit summary about the Elderly article. The point of the whole article is that the medical community has defined the word differently than its common usage. This is done for research purposes as described by the medical references. I should edit the Wikitionary with these references and their links. Thank you for your comment.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): Gosh it's been a month already since you left your first message to me. Sorry for the belated response. I'm not sure that your cited references support your conclusion. "Language about Aging" by Frank Nuessel says, in the section titled "Designations for older adults":

The appropriate designation for people who are older has been a debatable issue. The National Council on the Aging surveyed ten terms (

senior citizen

) to determine their acceptability among older adults—defined as people over the age of sixty-five. I don't know how we single any of these out for special treatment... to me they are all synonyms or euphemisms – or sometimes even terms of disparagement. "Older adult," has been "assigned routinely to all documents focusing on persons aged 60 and older."

And in "The elderly patient--who is that?", Sieber says defining elderly as over age 65 per se is nowadays certainly not really an adequate definition of an elderly patient.

So I'm not comfortable with a

elderly could just be merged into old age

; we should only have one article defining the broad concept.

Where an article cites specific studies of the "elderly", then state the age definition used for the purposes of that specific research study. This may vary; some may study anyone over 65, while others may start at 60 or 70. And AARP takes anyone over 50. I shudder at the thought I will be "elderly" in a few years; people are surprised when I tell them I'm retired because I look too young for that. It's hard to explain that I "work" for Wikipedia but don't get paid, you know that's not a "real" job. On the other hand I enjoy the luxury of setting my own task agenda and not needing to carry a pager and be on-call 24×7. In the computer profession, companies generally treat you as washed up if you're over 45. That was a nice column you wrote for Wikipediocracy, by the way. You have a real talent for that genre of writing. wbm1058 (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

How about I do a merge and then a redirect? This article is really about an epidemiological, quantifiable term rather than what everyone thinks it means. It is used by The World Health Organization and the Census bureau and the Centers for Disease control and Prevention and is not a broad concept. They have to define it even for the simple reason that this age group dies and they want to count them. Since I don't have time to make it more notable according to my definition I can hold off fixing it until I have more time. I've done this before and eventually go back and cancel the redirect with a real notable article. How about that - then we will both be happy. I would rather handle it this way with you because I am never excited about going through a merge discussion, it is too time consuming.

I would just rather do what you would like because I can go back later and address your concerns. Thanks for talking about it here rather than initiating a proposed merge. Let me know what you think. I absolutely hate being contentious and you seem like a very congenial person. The way you are handling this is so much better than what I am used to. What usually happens to me is I go back to edit an article and its gone and been redirected without anything close to a consensus or even a notification. The editor states that it was a merge but nothing really ends up the article to which it was merged. Its always done by the same editor. I'm still not sure what to do about especially since I detest bringing it up in front of any administrators because this backfired and I was the one who was blocked. This editor is an administrator. At least one other administrator discussed this problem in very, very general terms because I wasn't sure I was understanding what was happening. I realize this is not your problem and I'm glad.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, I think merge and redirect is probably best, with the contents you have now. Maybe create a Glossary of epidemiology terms. I can find some of those Googling for them: Glossary of epidemiology terms See if you can find one that lists "elderly", the two I looked at did not. I'm not convinced that there is a widespread academic or other consensus on the definition of this word that assigns a specific age to it. wbm1058 (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Barbara, I see that this census bureau report leads by defining its scope: "elderly (age 65 and over) population". So if you cite that report, just say "elderly (age 65 and over)" just like they do. I'm not sure about having an article about People over 65, but such a title would leave no doubt as to its scope. Another consideration is that we should take a worldwide-view, not just US-centric. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow! thanks for jumping right in! Since I still don't have time to put into it, I think I'll just put up redirect now. I can always go back to the editing history. A world-wide view will include information from the World Health Organization - I've seen it but don't remember where. If you are interested, just paste some of the refs you found on my talk page. Watch out! You'll be asked to become a medical editor...LOL.

Oh my gosh!!! That old age article is horrible! Just the first sentence makes me want to...oh I don't know. We're at the end of our life?? I'd like to see the reference on that one. I guess I just better walk into the funeral home and wait for a few minutes until he can dress me up. Did you ever see the movie Soylent Green? I redirected... not to Soylent Green but that would have been funny.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Soylent Green is people. I remember watching it when it first came out, and at least one time since then. Watch out, 2022 is just five years from now. Hoping the automatic rifle-equipped drones won't be coming after us, when they're looking for all the "bad people" to take out to solve the overpopulation crisis! Maybe Moore's law-powered solar panels will save us by then, or a workable fusion reactor. Windmills are getting more efficient too. Best, wbm1058 (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wbm1058,

please have a look at references 9, 11, 18, 19, 35, 36 and 56 - these proof pope em being fried and patronize. But I will find some more and insert them directly under "person". So thank you for your notice.

Paddy Pillow (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem is that English isn't your first language. I believe instead of fried and patronize it should say friend and patron. wbm1058 (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Sir, Request for move the the page Prem Khan (Indian actor) to Prem Khan. Thank you Goalpariyahero (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. wbm1058 (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wbm, FYI, Prem Khan was salted due to sockpuppetry. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I saw that it was salted in November 2015, so I considered that salting to be stale as there is new information in the article which merits a re-review to determine whether there is consensus to keep it. wbm1058 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to see that this has been re-created under so many different parenthetical disambiguation terms. e.g. Prem Khan (actor). Seems someone may be shooting themselves in the foot. wbm1058 (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

In any event, moving over the salted article resolves a

WP:content fork and if deleted, leaves behind a record of more recent edits and administrative actions. wbm1058 (talk

) 15:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I should have stressed that no criticism of you was intended, Wbm. Purely informative. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, you moved a page Prem Khan (Indian actor) to Prem Khan. I translated the article into Assamese as https://as.wikipedia.org/wiki/প্ৰেম_খান, and into Bengali as https://bn.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/প্রেম_খান; But these languages are not shown on the other languages of the English article. Need help of yours in this regard. Thank you! parthsar129 17:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axomiya deka (talk • contribs)

Please take care to keep comments focused on content and not on contributors, as you did the opposite at [4].

Also, the content was NOT a "content fork", not sure if maybe you misunderstand usage of that term, perhaps. Sagecandor (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please move Rajdweep (playwright and lyricist) to Rajdweep, Thanks Monuwara (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Awaiting the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajdweep (playwright and lyricist). wbm1058 (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

While auto racing fans may be unfamiliar with the term, the term 'ricing is widely used in food prep (please read the article!). So it IS a significant USE for the TERM ricing, though its meaning is unrelated to how the term 'ricing' is understood in car racing. Please don't remove the redirect to the article about the similar-sounding word 'Ricing (cooking)'. The article about rice burners is not damaged or diminished in any way by the clarifying redirect. MaynardClark (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@

sugar-mills and wheat husking factories with initially believing that public sector involvement would reduce the influence of mega-corporations transforming into big monopoly sphere. So it seems the term ricing applies more than just passing rice through a kitchen utensil. – wbm1058 (talk

) 15:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think they mean Rice huller. wbm1058 (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no doubt that there are other common ways to use the word 'ricing', but I know from food preparation that the term 'ricing' is used widely in cooking to describe a certain process. My thinking is that other common uses should be listed and redirected to Wikipedia articles that describe that reality (whether 'auto racing' in a 'ricer' or 'planting and growing rice'). I have no unhappiness with more articles that describe other uses of the word 'ricing' - in fact, I would favor more articles if the different use of the word truly describes something different. MaynardClark (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The Wiktionary definition could be more helpful. wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. I looked at the Wiktionary definition and found that it said nothing about the uses of the word 'ricing' except calling it the 'present participle of rice' (which is not very illuminating). Perhaps you suggest that updating the Wiktionary definition could be more useful. MaynardClark (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Wiktionary definition could be updated to make it more useful. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. My learning to update Wiktionary would be a learning experience for me (which I postpone until next month sometime, unless you or someone else updates it earlier). MaynardClark (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I publicly thanked you for your recent edit, without actually seeing what you did on the page, after the intervention of original compiler Auric. To answer your question, my point was that English use favours the name Lys, which happens to be also the French. We do, after all, refer to fleur de lys. So for a river which flows for half its course in France, it makes sense to have River Lys as the title of the article instead of the Dutch Leie. My Flemish colleagues would fully accept this logic. So the English article should be named River Lys or Lys (river), in my view.David-waterways (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I replied at User talk:David-waterways#Lys Leie Rivers. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Page moved to

WP:PDAB... perhaps the first on a non-pop-culture topic. wbm1058 (talk

) 14:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

See Template talk:R from incomplete disambiguation#Error checking revisited

Hi, sorry for bumping into you again, but was that supposed to happen? – Uanfala (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Uanfala, yes... Brijesh (Indian politician) is tagged with the {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} because, I assume, there is more than one Indian politician named Brijesh. Talk:Brijesh (Indian politician) was redirecting to Talk:Brijesh Singh, but Brijesh (Indian politician) redirects to Brijesh, thus that page was put into Category:Unsynchronized disambiguation talk pages. It's better to have it marked with {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} than redirect to a different page. I know technically Brijesh is not a disambiguation but rather a "given name" page that happens to disambiguate people with that name. There's more than one solution to this, and my bot is just doing what's easiest. Feel free to do something else like redirect to Talk:Brijesh, or blank the page or delete the page even. This is a bit of an unusual scenario as most redirects from incomplete disambiguation pages are to disambiguation pages rather than to human name pages that act as disambiguators. wbm1058 (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so it's my bad then, for leaving the talk page out of sync. I don't know what's the most useful way of dealing with this, but replacing the content with the WP DAB project banner is certainly one of the least: 1) this banner should only be put on talk pages that have other content as well (explained in the template's documentation); and 2) its placement obscures the connection with both the old redirect target and the new. – Uanfala (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

primary topic... just as by moving to Brijesh (Indian politician) you changed the PT for Brijesh. My bot has been operating for nearly a year now, and you're the first to finds issues with its edits. Note however, that while I haven't changed the bot's AWB instructions, I did recently expand the scope of its operations to include redirects to disambiguation pages as well as disambiguation pages themselves: see this diff and Template talk:R from incomplete disambiguation#Error checking revisited. So, please do suggest a better solution than what my bot is currently doing, but I still think what it's doing now is better than doing nothing. wbm1058 (talk

) 16:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe in such cases the best solution is to add {{

Talk page of a redirect}} followed by a brief notice of where the redirect was targeted before and where it is targeted now? This is the solution that I got the impression was the one most favoured by the editor who's most keen on doing these things properly. – Uanfala (talk)

23:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk page of a redirect}} is more generic, not indicating that it's anything disambiguation-related. It would be more work to add a note explaining the history, and the former and current targets. People have to go out of their way to get to the talk page of a redirect in the first place, as most will land on the talk page of the target of the redirect. Those with enough clue to get to these pages should be knowledgeable enough to research the history if they have sufficient motivation and reason to. This is an automated process I've created and going to the trouble to manually add this history with the former and current targets to each page isn't worth the trouble, and it's probably not worth the trouble to automate such messages either. I don't think I could do it with AWB so I'd probably need to write a custom bot. Such a thing would be so low on my priority list that it would likely never get done. wbm1058 (talk

) 23:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the echo, wbm1058! As I read the above, the thought came to me, 'Why not do both?'. Place the dab banner, which by the way works on any dab, given name, surname or set index talk page (I think the class for a set index talk page is SIA, or something similar, in many project banners), and the Talk page of redirect template at the TOP above the project banner. I do it that way because that template effectively turns the talk page into a soft redirect. Since most reader landings would be inadvertent, and since such talk pages should have no new discussions, both templates may serve Wikipedia best. And as you know, the Talk page of redirect template automatically synchronizes talk pages to their subject pages' targets, even when the subject page is renamed.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@

Talk:2nd Chance (album). Those who are curious may quickly review the page history to see that 2nd Chance (Karen Clark Sheard album) is the former primary topic. I trust that this is sufficient. wbm1058 (talk

) 09:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the benefit of having {{Talk page of redirect}} + WP DAB banner over the easier solution of just redirecting the talk page to be in sync with the article. And a side note: the WP DAB banner doesn't belong on anthroponymy pages, and before putting it on set-index articles I would want to gauge the opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. – Uanfala (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Uanfala, Is that your final answer? wbm1058 (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Uanfala's right about using {{WikiProject Anthroponymy}} rather than the Dab project banner on surnames and given names talk pages. I was wrong about that. The Dab banner is still okay to use on set index talk pages. One advantage of using the {{Talk page of redirect}} rather than to make the talk page a hard redirect is that the subject page redirect might target a page that has no talk page, so a hard redirect used to synch the talk page would target a non-existing talk page, and Anomiebot would quickly find the edit and revert it. When I synched the 10,000+ talk page redirects, I converted them all into hard redirects using AWB, then Anomie reverted about 1,000 of them that had targeted non-existing talk pages. I had to use Talk page of redirect to go back and synchronize those talk pages.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  11:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Uanfala and Paine Ellsworth: when I made this edit to Template:R from incomplete disambiguation, I thought it would be simplest and sufficient to just populate the existing Category:Unsynchronized disambiguation talk pages so my bot could handle them all (mostly) the same. Now it seems clear that that is not acceptable, so I think I need to create a new Category:Unsynchronized disambiguation talk page redirects so that these can be specially processed via getting all the pages in that category. I can create the new category while we sort out what the best solution is for the pages that land there. This is turning out to be more complicated than I bargained for. wbm1058 (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans", John Lennon, "Beautiful Boy"  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's hat the discussion on my talk page and resume the conversation at Template talk:R from incomplete disambiguation#Error checking revisited. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I had no idea what I was doing. It finally worked but whatever you just fixed was still there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I notice you removed the hatnote from Bear on the basis that "Ursine is ambiguous".

Fair enough, but that hatnote also included the link to Bear (disambiguation) which was affected by the removal as well. I appreciate that these maybe should have been separate hatnotes in the first place, but please take care when removing things like this that you don't inadvertantly break something else. Thanks.

(I've already added a new hatnote covering Bear (disambiguation), BTW). Ubcule (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

oops, I missed that. No, combined hatnotes generally are preferred. Sorry, my bad. Occasionally I just miss things like that in my patrols. wbm1058 (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Damn (Kendrick Lamar album). Because you were involved in the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. — TheMagnificentist 12:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

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 {{

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)

Hi Wbm1058. Please see an email I sent you. Hoping to find out how to make progress on the documentation bug about Special:Permalink and Special:Diff, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T47221, and the the proposed Mediawiki code change to display something helpful if Special:Diff or Special:Permalink are invoked with no arguments. You and I discussed this back in 2015, and I'm happy to see that your talk page archives still remember the issues. It appears that in 2015 User:MatmaRex did the coding work to change Mediawiki. Hs change passed the code review, but the current status is 'Needs rebase'. One of the code reviewers was nl:User:Siebrand. I've been explaining the status to a person who knows more about documentation. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I got the usual email saying "‪EdJohnston‬ left you a message on Wikipedia" but no separate email other than the notice that samuwmde added a comment to the phabricator ticket. I checked my spam folder; nothing there either. But maybe it will come through in the next few hours. Thanks for giving this a bump. Now I'm wishing I'd made the trip to Montreal. I would have liked to meet you in person. Try to stay awake if you sit through any talks about their strategy for 2030. I just wish they could come up with a strategy for taking less than several years to respond to a simple request to update some documentation.

And if you could bump this task as well, I would be very grateful. It saw some action at the May hackathon, but now is again frustratingly stalled in a state of limbo. Best, wbm1058 (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Now sent. Sorry for the delay. It appears that there are people who know about these things, you just need to figure out who to ask. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Got it Ed! Look for this guy, I would have enjoyed meeting him too and I'm sure I could learn a lot from him. I've got mixed feelings about not making the trip, as there is an unrelated local event I would have missed if I was in Montreal. wbm1058 (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Matma Rex has been making some changes that you can see in gerrit:129095. It appears there nothing is likely to hold this up any further. But it is worth considering whether any of the documentation for Special:Diff and Special:Permalink should be updated as well. From looking over some help pages, I am not certain that Special:Diff is included in all the different lists of special pages you can see here and there. For example, it is not in Special:SpecialPages. He showed me the new blank page form that will be generated when you hit Special:Diff with no arguments. This is a big step forward over seeing 'No such target page' when you hit Special:Diff with no arguments, but it's not clear to me that I'd have any use for a form with space for two pointers to edits. Can you think of anything better? Generally I make diffs by clicking on underlined words in histories. Or by going through someone's contribution list and clicking on the 'Diff' links. He says there is a feature that allows a short piece of text to appear above everything else on the Special:Diff result page but somebody would have to decide what to put there. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@

Help:SpecialPages, which was complete as of mid-December 2016‎. – wbm1058 (talk

) 21:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

We also have: Help:Special page • Help:Diff • Help:Permanent link – wbm1058 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Since the door is open for code changes to the parameterless call to

Help:SpecialPages. Perhaps we should just verify that the other forms of documentation of the same thing have a link to it. In fact, the other documentation changes may not need the same amount of approval since there is nothing to be 'tested'. We would just have to ensure that the documentation is correct. Possibly nothing more than admin permissions is needed. Somebody would need to tell us what files to edit. EdJohnston (talk

) 22:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, if there are pages in [[MediaWiki:]] for editing the "short piece of text to appear above everything else on the Special:Diff or Special:Permalink result page" can you find out what the page names are for that? Thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm doing last-minute preparations for this, which is at 4pm EDT! Sending you an email. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk)

EdJohnston, the change is live! Check out the new Special:Diff and Special:Permalink. I created the pages MediaWiki:Diff-form-summary and MediaWiki:Permanentlink-summary to show the "short piece of text to appear above everything else" on those pages, which overrides the default (which is to show no message at all). There are other components we can change too, such as the titles shown at the top of those pages:

• diff messages
• permalink messages

Thanks so much for the nudge at Montreal that made this finally happen! — wbm1058 (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Wbm1058, it appears that you restored this page out of process. It was deleted under G5 and and following an enquiry, the deletion was endorsed at DELREV (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 4). Could you please look into this. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, slow Internet. I see you deleted it again already. Thank you very much. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Welcome to the new order. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this interests you but you never know:

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject . There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@

Provident Financial is hurting. The financial canaries are signaling trouble. When the shoeshine boys want to start an investment project on Wikipedia, watch out! My interest in finance is so last-millennium, but good luck with it. Buy low, sell high. – wbm1058 (talk

) 19:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers mate. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you add an inappropriate image to Wikipedia again, as you did at Peter Norton, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your behavior on this article has gone on too long. NFCC policy and consensus practice are quite clear. Nonfree book covers are generally not allowed in author bios; the nonfree use rationale for the image involved is plainly invalid, and neither that image nor your prior comments provides any basis under NFC policy for making an exception to the general rule. NFCC requirements are more restrictive than general "fair use" principles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

We clearly have a difference of opinion. You haven't cited any precedents where this matter has been previously discussed as it relates to similar usage in other articles. Make your case at Wikipedia:Files for discussion, and let's see where the consensus lies. This needs wider discussion than it's had so far (a local discussion on your talk page). wbm1058 (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

True, the magazine is currently primary, but based on Page Traffic and Links, Autocar Company should be primary. Can you change this, please?Sedimentary (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Talk:Autocar (disambiguation) would be helpful and appreciated. – wbm1058 (talk

) 14:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the error I unintentionally made on the Ain't Nature Grand! article. Sorry about the mistake, but I appreciate your edit very much! --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• 23.22.22.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The vandal that you just blocked is back using this IP address. Thanks. 73.96.113.19 (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)