This is an archive of past discussions about User:Wbm1058. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Wbm1058, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
Please see my reply to your comment on my talk page (which you were apparently leaving as I started this section). LadyofShalott19:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
hi, i've noticed you've been editing others posts. if it's a link they clearly meant to make, that's usually ok, but i'd suggest that otherwise if you're trying to make a point, you just make the point instead of doing it by linking to something and implying in comments that what the person said isn't what is meant. for example, unencyclopedic does not just mean 'what wikipedia is not' when I say it. --KarlB (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion at Category_talk:Facebook_groups#criteria
Thanks for undoing the edit I made on the Nikon page. FYI, I wasn't having a display issue on my end but rather IE was having a problem with the way the article was coded. Unfortunately, IE is used by a majority of Web users - I don't like it but that's the way it is. IE doesn't handle tables and biases of pictures very well so by shifting the picture to the left, a huge gap was now filled in on all browers - IE, Firefox, Opera, etc. Now that it's shifted back, there's a large gap or white space between the open paragraph and where the picture with the company's headquarters is. Firefox & most other browsers do display it correctly. I was just trying to make it look right for everyone. I wasn't asking for help....just trying to provide help. Sorry for the confusion! Dave Dbroer (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I favor Google Chrome—love its foreign language translation feature which lets me read non-English language Wikipedias. Checked the article with IE, but I don't see any problem with it. Are you having the issue with other Wikipedia articles, or just the Nikon article only? What screen resolution are you using? What version of IE? There is a large amount of white space after the article lead, but that is due to the long table of contents. Putting the picture on the right, below the infobox, fills in some of that white space. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
So WHY did you perform a cut-and-paste move instead of following your own advice and waiting for an admin to move it? Really, you should know better. I've cleaned up the mess you made. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I did not paste. I saw a content fork: two disambiguation pages. All I did was this. Of course it was CBS Records (disambiguation) when I made my edit. Maybe I should have looked closer to see which version of disambiguation was better, I assumed that the one already there was good enough. The edit summaries are sure to make future editors dizzy. All this moving and re-moving is getting me confused. Not sure who's on first anymore. Sorry. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I jumped to conclusions. It appears that Steelbeard does not understand the difference between a page move and a cut-and-paste, even though they have been editing long enough that they should know this. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
You undid my reformatting which was done to put the posts dated in May (before the formal request was made today) into the reason for the request that posts to WP:RM. Now just the August post will be there, which could be read out of context. Sorry, the bot can't handle this any better right now. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Sarah Myra
Hi, you recently moved the Sarah & Myra article based on the request of a single editor without waiting for input from anyone else. The editor had earlier gone & changed a bunch of quotations in the article's citation templates to conform to his conviction about what the article title should be in a manner prohibitted by Wikipedia's guidelines. Since I can't right now go through those changes & you're the one that moved the article, I ask that you examine the user's edits & reevaluate your move's validity based on the sources used in the article.—Biosketch (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I assumed good faith on the part of that editor and believed it to be a simple technical request for a spelling correction. I see now that the sources are mixed. I corrected the quotes of the cited sources, and the reversal of 347 & 348. It doesn't appear to me that determining which spelling is used in the majority of sources will be an easy call. I added another source (Bloomberg) which uses Sara. If you still have concerns, please discuss at Talk:Sara and Myra. – thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
It's fine, I don't have a preference either way. If you say you checked the sources and are satisfied that the Reqmove was valid, then that's good enough. Thanks for fixing the title and quotation changes. A few days ago they finished assessing the first drilling and concluded there's no gas there. No one's updated the article, so I'll probably do that this week.—Biosketch (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
BDD has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Generally, it's reasonable to think the first move could have been considered uncontroversial, but unless there is some obvious change in circumstances since the first move, a later move to revert the initial move should be considered potentially controversial. The 5 October 2012 move should have been based on a {{requested move}}, as someone thought, two years ago, that Prostitution in Palestine should be the correct title. As to which is the "parent" article, is it Palestinian territories or is it Palestine, or is it State of Palestine? A rhetorical question, which should be answered as part of a WP:RM discussion.
As the last move to your proposed name lasted a single day, and the current name has been stable for six years, I would consider a move at this point to be potentially controversial. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I think I see your point. I guess I'm coming at this from the prescriptive of following precedent and the the way Palestine articles are usually named.
I have some experience in these Palestine named articles. Articles about the West Bank and Gaza are named "of/in the Palestinian territories" with the major exception of articles related to the PNA government, which are named "in/of the Palestinian National Authority". Articles related to the Palestinian people use "Palestinian" in their title. "Palestine" is usually used for articles about the Palestine/Israel geographic region, Mandatory Palestine (tough MP articles sometimes have "Mandatory Palestine" instead of "Palestine" in their titles), or things with "Palestine" in their proper name.
As far as I know this isn't an officially written down naming convention, this is just the way these articles are named, and there are exceptions. I don't know how this came about, it was like this when I found it, tough I suspect the distention between "Palestine" and "Palestinian territories" is much more so then it used to be. I don't know how these were named back in 2006 or 2010.
While this de-facto naming convention itself must certainly be controversial (as would any naming convention related to the word Palestine), unless there was some reason for an article not to match it, making an article match it would not be. Those articles haven't been touched sense 2010 and 2011 respectively. That combined with them not matching the other article's names, combined with the lack of any apparent reason for them not to, and that Palestine articles seam rather under-maintained in my experience, means they were probably just overlooked. I suspect that these de-facto "naming convention" are rather recent.
I haven't studied these, so don't have any view on whether anything there is applicable to the pages discussed above. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, can't judge but seems from the RM on the Left Banke song that you may not be familiar with the orthographical print issues with all caps names. Accents are often dropped on older capital fonts, hence lowercase sources should be sought. No biggie. Also see User:Prolog/Diacritical marks. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
(cur | prev) 16:50, 7 November 2012 Wbm1058 (talk | contribs) . . (51,988 bytes) (+11) . . (In certain personal names such as Renée and Zoë, the diacritical marks may perhaps be included more often than omitted. No reference cited for any stronger statement, and on Wikipedia, Renée and Renee are each seen about as often) (undo) .....
and you are confusing (1) reality, some of these people spell their names one way, one another (2) the issue with unreliable sources WP:CRAPSOURCES, is unrelated to (1).
And your edit is somehow not "original research"? I'm not going to make a big deal about this, as what you say is mostly common sense. Please don't disparage the New York Times as a "CRAPSOURCE" because it doesn't spell Zoë's name "correctly." I regret we've clashed a bit because I think we have different communication styles. At the heart of the issue is the weak policy at WP:DIACRITICS. I just noted over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) that this is a hot topic of debate. You, in my view, have taken a, for lack of a better term, far-left position on the issue. I was just, in playing devil's advocate as as attempt to interpret the current weak guidelines in as balanced a manner as possible, stating what I believe could be some "far-right" positions that were not my own. Maybe I'll come back to this later, but I don't have as much emotional investment in the topics of diacritics and music as you do. Best wishes, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to NYT, which generally isn't a WP:UNRELIABLE SOURCE for American accents, nor Mexican ones.
Thanks for the above reply. We come from different starting points, since where I come from no-one would describe spelling Renée Zellweger's name correctly as "far-left", any more than not using black-and-white photos to determine whether a rose is yellow or red comes is also not "far-left" - I see this as "far-common-sense".
As regards WP:DIACRITICS and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), these suffer the same problem as all WP guidelines. Users who contribute (or WP:TROLL?) in guideline/Talk/policy space, often have different objectives from Users who actually contribute to article space. WP:DIACRITICS is perhaps the most extreme example I am aware of where a guideline is WP:OWNERed by 2 or 3 users opposed to universal article reality, which means opposed to 1,000s of article space editors who just ignore it, but I doubt it is the only one. But it does mean constant friction at WP:RM where the guideline - which has been rejected by a substantial majority in a RfC, but the owners have super-votes, is quoted as gospel. Devil's advocate or not. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
btw, apologise that I didn't see the devil's advocate element - normally in this area an apparent xenonymophobe is the real thing. I just noted scrolling up the Talk page on WPRM where you noted move log (your own) as an example and saw:
19:49, 25 October 2012 Wbm1058 (talk | contribs) moved page Renee Coleman to Renée Coleman over redirect (per her website and book cover)
19:25, 25 October 2012 Wbm1058 (talk | contribs) moved page Renee A. Blake to Renée A. Blake (per article lede and NYU website faculty profile) (revert)
15:22, 25 October 2012 Wbm1058 (talk | contribs) moved page Renee Kosel to Renée Kosel over redirect (per lede and her website)
Quite brave for you to stick your neck out given the litigousness of the anti-French-names lobby, but note that all 3 of these have fairly high quality sources. That isn't the case for example with sports BLPs, such as Talk:Alfredo Marte (a case of overcompensation for the usual incompetence of ESPN, but proves the case by inverse) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Move discussion at Talk:Angry Birds
Is there something wrong here? I went to see a move discussion after being notified at the relevant Article alerts page, but there was nothing there? — Cirt (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, that was an interesting unusual cross-move request. The move discussion was only archived over at the other Angry Birds article, see talk:Angry Birds (video game). I copied the archived move discussion, so it's on both articles' talk pages, to clear up the confusion. Not really anything that the bot can do about this, we're really just relying on an alert closing administrator (or me) to make a manual copy of the discussion. Thanks for pointing this out. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
RMCD bot and file move requests
Would it be possible to instruct RMCD bot to put a colon in the link for file move requests? Currently, move requests for files result in the image being transcluded (see e.g. [1]) and the bot even "reverts" the addition of colons when it's updating the request list (see [2]). --87.79.111.177 (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I know that, I've read the manual :P But people keep requesting image moves at RM. Hm. I'm thinking maybe it would be a good idea to make Template:Requested move not work on file talk pages, to prevent erroneous uses of this kind. I know I've seen this on other templates which are designed to work only in their designated namespaces. Sorry, only just realized that that's precisely what you're talking about above wrt {{subst:requested move}} could check for attempted file moves and give that guidance. --87.79.111.177 (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Fixed ==Sorry, this is just a test: Requested move ==
Imho, {{rename media}} should be deprecated. Why do we even have a separate template for files, and excluding those discussions from WP:RM, where they may get wider attention and more input? Seems to make little sense, whence all the people who (naturally and plausibly) try to request moves for files like for any other page. --87.79.111.177 (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Regarding "But people keep requesting image moves at RM", I don't think that's been an ongoing problem, or I would have been made aware of it sooner. Note per Wikipedia:Moving a page#Moving a file page:
Administrators or file movers can move pages in the file namespace. When such a page is moved the associated file is moved as well. The move leaves a redirect that functions like the file itself. For instance, the image can be displayed by linking to a redirect to it. In non-controversial cases you can request a file to be moved by adding the template {{rename media}} to the description page of the file.
So maybe they should be handled just like any other move request? I don't see a reason they're not. Wrt file move requests at RM, I've come across two or three over the last couple of weeks. So, they're not very frequent, but it does happen. --87.79.133.18 (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
These all have been speedily handled as technical, uncontroversial requests. It seems that controversy has yet to really enter the domain of file moves, perhaps this is one area of Wikipedia that is immune from controversy. There is no consensus that a procedure for resolving file moves controversies is even necessary. The existing procedure of using {{rename media}} seems to be working well enough. I've implemented the fix (see above) to keep file moves away from WP:RM. Should consensus develop in the future to support file moves there, {{subst:move}} can be modified to support file moves. I've put modifying user:RMCD bot to insert colons at the front of links on my to-do list back-burner, as there seems no harm in making that change, but the template fix should have solved the immediate problem. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Update – Just a note before I archive this. I consider this issue resolved, so there is nothing on the back burner. {{Requested move}} was modified to put a colon in the "from" links and Template:No redirect does this as well for the "to" links. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually this is a highly specific legal concept, not understood by most of the public, or, clearly, by you, on which we don't yet have an article, but should redirect to Generic trademark. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, yes, I understand the concept of the generic trademark, and where I saw a link to generic term which clearly means generic trademark, I changed it to that. However look at this example. Nyboder is today very much associated with their yellow colour and "Nyboder yellow" is in Danish often used as a generic term to refer to their exact hue of yellow. In this example, Nyboder is the name of a town, not a brand name. Do you think that this article used the term generic term incorrectly, and if so, what would be a better term to use here? Or is Nyboder the name of a homebuilder that was genericised to become the name of a neighborhood? Article's not clear to me. Here's another example: In this case I'm unable to tell whether polyester was someone's brand name or not. I would guess Du Pont, but nothing I see confirms that. Thus I just treat polyester as a generic brand—there's a different article for that. What is the difference between Generic term and generic trademark, or are they synonomous? If you redirect there, you really should define Generic term there. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Done – This area of Wikipedia was indeed in need of some cleanup. I redirected generic term to a better, more specific target, cross-linked some related articles, added references and went back and re-changed some of my link updates. It's better now, but not perfect. Hope you like the changes. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Wbm. The reason I used "barrier" occasionally in these articles is to avoid repeating the word "dam" too often. Since a dam is a type of barrier, that seems reasonable. Otherwise you have e.g. "The Sose Dam is a dam..." or "the dam is a curved gravity dam", which sound IMHO a little clumsy. Happy to find other ways to express the sentences which avoid either construct, though. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't intend to appeal the move itself for the meantime, but the wording of your closing comment was problematic. "The result of the move request was: page moved"[3] implies that some discussion took place, and the consensus was to move the page. However, given the extremely fishy nature of the RM and resulting move (see here), some other wording along the lines of [4] would be better. The nominator was an anonymous sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user who followed me to the article and made the RM in order to revert me (following the pattern of harassment that got the main account blocked in the first place). When one user (who understand WP:BRD well[5]) opposed the request given this obvious problem, a user who is currently under investigation of being another sock of the same person suddenly showed up and unilaterally moved the page in spite of the ongoing RM and the dodgy circumstances behind it.
User:Cuchullain and I both suspect this was done because the sockmaster couldn't overrule the opposing user via an IP account, and so used his good hand to perform the extremely questionable move. Not meaning at all to drag you into very dirty waters, but for posterity's sake some altered wording might not be a bad idea.
As the original coder of RM bot, I very much appreciate that you have not only taken over the bot after my original successor disappeared, but that you have also actively maintained it. Thank you very much. Harej (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I made an edit suggestion in the /sandbox you are working on. Unfortunately, in the same minute you edited (reverted) too. Hope I did not spoil your process. I'll stay out of it unless asked. -DePiep (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
No, your fix worked, thanks. I appreciate the help. Sorting out where those curly braces go can be confusing & time consuming and you just saved me some time:) Wbm1058 (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Glad it did. btw, for the bracket checking, I use importScript('User:Ais523/bracketmatch.js'); that shows colored pairs on request. But I could not find its doc page anymore. -DePiep (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, maybe I'll try that. I actually printed it out on paper and then marked it up with highlighter pens. There's still a problem, if nothing passed in, the output is empty brackets, i.e., [[]] – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I see. I've thrown those empty brackets out in {{IPA soundbox/build soundbox/sandbox}}. As I left it, then the {showsymbol} is shown but not wikilinked. issue: when all blank, the <div> box does not show (no blank line effect), while the param explicitly promises it: {show box above=yes}. This was introduced to set the layout in tables nice. To restore that effect,it would need an (ugly) <br/> added to the new showsymbol-only outcome. -DePiep (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Your fix makes me happy. I'm primarily interested in avoiding transclusions of {{error}} when there aren't really any errors. I'll make the fixes for IPAsym name live. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Preventing the error appear around is an improvement. Will you add the <br/>? Otherwise the box might jump in table rows. I did not check wider effects. Logging off for a while. -DePiep (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what you're asking me to do. I'm done working on these templates (I trust I didn't break anything). Feel free to make any additional improvements yourself. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
[6] is what I meant. Intention: the top line (row) should not disappear when it is empty. The template originally "promised" that there is a div-box (or text line). With this edit it is an empty line of whitespace. In other words: the box should occupy two lines. The effect would be bad in a table row: some empty ones (we have addded now) may cause the soundbox to sit half-hight in a cell, irregular with neigbouring cells. -DePiep (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
OK. That makes sense. I made it live, though I didn't have a test case to confirm the problem and the fix. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! There's Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, but it seems to focus on deleting redirects, and I haven't been active in that area. I've found that being wp:BOLD in situations like this works best. I don't think it ever makes sense to have alternative capitalizations or spellings redirect to different articles, and it's usually an oversight because a redirecting editor never checked for or missed alternate spellings or capitalizations that also should have been redirected at the same time. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello
Hiya, I just asked a question over on WP:RED about personal names. As an editor of this guideline if you could help me find an answer I would much appreciate it. Thanks. --MisterShiney✉18:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The recent change [7] appears to be causing a substitution error (the #if statement is being directly substituted, instead of being processed) It appears to be missing a safesubst -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I've been visited again by a real template guru. That's what happens when I limit most of my testing to preview pages, had to actually save test edits to catch that. I think I've got it fixed, along with a similar mistake in {{move-multi}}. Thanks much! Wbm1058 (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I certainly should not need to point out to anyone that "you're a somewhat quirky editor" can be construed as a "personal attack", per the advice of WP:NPA which states "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Apteva (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Pneuron logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
@Sfan00 IMG:@JohnCD: Well, duh, the image is an orphan because Pneuron was deleted because the author – apparently either User:MooshiePorkFace or User:Morning277 (which one is it, an article can only be created by a single editor, and it should be clear which it was!) was banned or blocked. Why did it take several months to notice this? I can't find any edits to Pneuron in either of their edit histories. As I recall there was probably one single main contributor to Pneuron who I don't recall edited much else. I think the editor that created the article may likely have been associated with the company. There was, as I recall, borderline notability established by third-party reliable sources. I decided to help out a neophyte editor anyhow by uploading the logo. Sorry to find that apparently my time was wasted. Can you confirm the actual editor that created the article? Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence in Sorrell's edit history to show that he created or edited the Pneuron article. This all seems kind of strange to me.
Is this the kind of editor that we want to encourage with "easy" tools like Visual Editor?
Help I need some kind of "Visual Editor" for "sockpuppets" this is very complicated and I don't understand it. Make it easier for me, thanks! Wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Wbm1058. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
I saw an edit to my archives (that's bad, bad form BTW), and it appears that you're planning on usurping WP:FNC for some other purpose than what it been in use for. Could you please point to a discussion where this was approved by consensus, as I for one am 100% against it ES&L17:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
And I have undone the change to WP:FNC. Please undo any other changes to archives, articles, etc until you have appropriate consensus for the change. Considering how much that acronym has been used over the years, that might have been a little too bold. Cheers. ES&L17:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
So your position is that once tied up, even in user space, a shortcut can never be reused? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Shortcuts.
I had just finished cleaning up all links to WP:FNC by replacing them with WP:FBNC, when you came along. It didn't take me that long. None of them were in article space. That's better form than I've seen from others on Wikipedia, who just usurp shortcuts without bothering to clean up old links in the archives.
The user space essay apparently came into being because its author was involved in something of an edit war. All mention of it was limited to talk pages and noticeboards in the 2008–09 timeframe, and it has pretty much been superseded by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople). I think that it was bad form to take a 3-letter shortcut for a link to user space. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:List of shortcuts. Apparently there is some basis for what I want to do. WP:J and WP:X are "pending reallocation to high-traffic page". Surely this user's page is not a high-traffic page.
Glad you found it ... I haven't been online much the last couple of days. I appreciate your understanding, your research, AND what you're working towards. Cheers ES&L00:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
@EatsShootsAndLeaves: An RFC isnt necessary for this, as it shouldnt be controversial, so I have redirected WP:FNC to Wikipedia:File names again. Shortcuts for userspace pages are rare (usually only occurs when the page started in Wikipedia space, but was moved to userspace as it wasnt appropriate for WP space). This page has very few backlinks or pagehits, and very little collaboration around it. We already have a naming convention for sportspeople, and any specifics regarding football can/should go there. Even if there was a football specific naming convention, it would use a shortcut like WP:NCFB, as all content page naming conventions start with WP:NC*. John Vandenberg(chat)03:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pneuron until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Lepid
Hello Wbm1058,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Lepid for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
I understand your change at Bradley Byrne regarding the appropriate infobox to use. I did look at the template page and saw the quote that you left so I do not dispute your change. I am curious about the reasoning. I looked through the archives and saw a lengthy discussion from 2008 concerning the make up of the template and what should be included but I am wondering where the actual discussion took place concerning the prohibition. Could you direct me there? I'm curious because it seems to me that a person currently out of office but nominated for a major office would be better served by a candidate box instead of an officeholder box. Just wondering. Thanks! JodyBtalk19:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm probably not the best person to ask as I only occasionally edit political officeholder articles, and am not familiar with any past discussions about the issue. Actually I found your edit because you (inadvertently, I assume in good faith) linked Democrat Party (United States) in that infobox. Notice that redirects to Democrat Party (epithet). I was just patrolling for those, and found one other. I'll give you a more high-profile example: Mitt Romney's article, 1 November 2012. Typically, the media still called him "Governor Romney" rather than "candidate Romney. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the linking was inadvertent. In fact, I did not know there was an epithet page. Anyway, I appreciate the information. JodyBtalk20:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Request for RM templates
O great RM template guru, I have a request. Would it be possible to edit the standard and multi RM templates to add an optional parameter that would suppress auto-signing? Something like |sign=no? Auto-signing can occasionally cause problems, such as when someone converts another editor's move to a multi-move or simply replaces a malformed request. It's not the end of the world that the current arrangement requires a second edit to remove the extra signature, but would this be a viable option? It's hard to imagine this being abused, and it would be easily remedied (such as with {{unsigned}}) if it were. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
"template guru". It takes a lot of time & effort to become one. Since you, and another editor, have asked for this before, I'm working on it—and those templates are becoming even more complex. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to keep you waiting, this is still on my to-do list. I started working on it, and while doing that, found other enhancements I felt should be done first. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Your account has been granted the template editor user right, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.
Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Facebook_groups#criteria. KarlB (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Fixed ==Sorry, this is just a test: Requested move ==
Done – This area of Wikipedia was indeed in need of some cleanup. I redirected generic term to a better, more specific target, cross-linked some related articles, added references and went back and re-changed some of my link updates. It's better now, but not perfect. Hope you like the changes. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
