User talk:Wbm1058

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)

...so 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)

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.

• Older discussions are at /Automating proposed mergers. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

...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)

• m:Community health initiative/Measuring the effectiveness of blocks
• User:JamesR/AdminStats (show Blocks)
• Daily counts of blocks and unblocks
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit/Statistics (CheckUser and Oversight use)

Ha!! I forgot all about this, Wbm1058! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: It's still on my to-do list, as is replying to your email! Eventually... I keep a lot of burners going on my giant stove, alas some I have to keep down low for a long time. But I let other ppl cook my Thanksgiving dinner ;) wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat related to this, i.e. the area of community health and dealing with behavioral issues, is Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Something I haven't really paid much attention to.

There's a helpful search box at the top of that page. "Enter a username into this box to check if they have been sanctioned." e.g. Hmm. DUE, BALANCE, NPOV, RS talk. Followup. More followup. I'll try to help resolve this if I can. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh my. wbm1058 (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

Hello. I noticed that you recently removed a large number of {{cleanup}} tags dating back over 10 years. As you noted, these tags were indeed stale, and didn't have reasons listed, but I would say that in most of those cases, the need for cleanup was completely obvious from a cursory glance at the rest of the article. As the blurb for the "Articles needing cleanup" category states: "If you're sure the article has been cleaned up, addressing any obvious flaws as well as any specific problems mentioned on the talk page, feel free to remove the tag. There's not much harm in leaving it on if you aren't certain what to do; the tag will alert someone else to come by later and check up on the article." I spend most of my time on wiki working through these articles trying to sort them out, and without those tags, the article are now "on the loose" in the wikipedia with no warning for readers of their poor quality or way of editors finding them to address their problems. Please bear in mind before deleting any more that editors do actually use these tags and categories. Cheers. Jdcooper (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jdcooper, OK. Here are my relevant 34 edits. I removed a total of 31 {{cleanup}} tags. I did notice that several had been proposed for deletion, and I suppose by removing the tags I'm keeping them from someone else noticing them and putting a PROD tag on the top. Not sure why anyone would want to spend much time to cleanup up a page that was proposed for deletion. I did make a few obvious fixes, but feel free to review them, and if you restore the template and add a reason to it, please also update the date to the current month, which will clear them out of the back end of the queue. I also noticed that in the talk archives the possibility of using a bot to remove these tags had been discussed. But, I'll move on for now to resume working on my more usual tasks, and maybe check back in on this later. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but the problem is articles like Dick Brooks (magician) where the creator has now removed the PROD tag and a horrible mess of an article is left untagged. I've gone through and added more specific tags to the ones with obvious problems, but I feel like dumping them in the July 2019 cohort (though that is what I've done) will just leave them unloved for even longer. The reason I poke about in this area of the encyclopaedia is specifically to find the long-term worst articles. But there are always plenty more repositories of such articles, obviously! Have a nice day. Jdcooper (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This backlog still seems to be growing faster than it's getting cleared. Category:Articles needing cleanup from December 2008, which is where I was working in July, was deleted in October 2019, and I just coincidentally found that Category:Articles needing cleanup from January 2009 was ready for deletion. So this has been getting cleared at a rate substantially slower than one per month. On to February 2009. wbm1058 (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Note to myself. On my back burner is to followup on the purpose for Category:Redirects from incorrect disambiguation. See the edit history of Assassin (movie)Assassin (movie). Also User talk:Anomie/linkclassifier#Some suggestions. Hopefully will follow up on this a few moons from now, after working through several higher-priority tasks. wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

mw.hook( 'LinkClassifier' ).add( function ( linkClassifier ) {
    // Delete the "incorrect-title" code
    delete linkClassifier.cats['incorrect-title'];

    // Add the "linked-misspellings" and "linked-miscapitalisations" codes, with appropriate categories.
    linkClassifier.cats['linked-misspellings'] = [
        'Category:Redirects from misspellings'
    ].sort();
    linkClassifier.cats['linked-miscapitalisations'] = [
        'Category:Redirects from miscapitalisations'
    ].sort();
} );
importScript('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js]]

Hi Wbm1058, I hope you are well. About this topic, did we get any further with this? I feel like it was a bit forgotten and archived, but I'd be very interested in continuing to find a full list of GANs by nominators. I'd love to help get something like this off the ground (I should be a little bit closer to the top 40 now, I've promoted another 30 or so since the discussion)! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Lee I lost momentum on this and let it drift to my back burners. I'll keep it on my to-do list and try to get back to it. Juggling a lot of balls, as usual, and as you can see from the sections above, new requests for my time keep coming in, making it harder to stay focused on more time-intensive projects. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Not an issue. I thought about it earlier, and I didn't know if anyone was actively looking at it or not. I've also been busy, so haven't had much time for much! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

...on potential improvements for WikiProject Articles for creation: What is missed? That's probably better answered by more-experienced AfCers, but one thing as an outsider admin I'd very much like is improved data on how drafts flow around the system. A log of all AfC submissions & reviews (accepts & declines); a log of individual reviewers' records (similar to the CSD log of NPPers); more clarity on the project's stats. ETA: I've just found Template:AFC statistics but it needs a proper historical log. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

As another "outsider admin", I'm interested in this too, and have the skills needed to create such a log. Adding this to my potential to-do list. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wikimedia movement, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

A token of thanks Hi Wbm1058! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

thanks on this note. I wasn't sure if it was the script or my error. Let me know if I should revert my manual tag of the new page. Happy to, I just wasn't sure how to best record the AfD where future editors would look. Star Mississippi 15:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Your manual placement of the template on the new page is what the script should have automatically done for you. Evad37 opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser#Old afd templates placed on talk pages of redirects. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the pointer to the discussion. Will follow it as I seem to be more active in closing AfDs and wasn't aware of that page. Star Mississippi 16:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Status update. Special:Contributions/Evad37. Most recent edit 22 January 2022. Just ten days after opening RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022. Any interface editors willing to help maintain this gadget? Sigh. I'd need to get around to taking a crash course in JavaScript, something I've had on my back-back-back-burner for a long time. Doing that would mean dropping other balls I carry, at least for a while. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Wbm1058, have you completed task 2 and no longer require +sysop to be set on this bot? — xaosflux ^Talk 09:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

My progress is documented at User talk:Merge bot/Task 2. While my most recent run was on 9 April 2021, this task is still on my to-do list and I expect to eventually get back to it. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Template parameters: Infobox settlement – wbm1058 (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• List of current NBA team rosters exceeds the node count limit – wbm1058 (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 78#Update on ONUS RFC  • Wikipedia:ONUSWikipedia:ONUS  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:ONUS – wbm1058 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 78#Rewording the contentious "onus" sentence – wbm1058 (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you haven't appreciated, or perhaps not noticed, the huge amount of work I've been taking on from this report for the last year or so. When I had JWB rights, I handled entries with hundreds of incoming links, probably fixing more than a million over-capped places, and a fair number of under-capped ones as well. And I identified, reported, and asked for a fix to the Visual editor UI problem that causes so many of the pipings through under-capitalized redirects. Of course, seeing how useful this report is for tracking things that ought to be addressed, I also added a whole lot of R from miscapitalion label to redirects that came from consensus moves to lowercase, so sometimes the list grew more than it shrunk. Since losing JWB, I've concentrated on the entries with more than 1 but fewer than a dozen incoming links, which is why you see a bit of an odd distribution in that neighborhood, and an ever-growing list of ones with just 1 incoming link. There's just a bit of overhead on each line I take on, so it's not efficient to work on the singles. And the big multiples will be more efficiently worked with JWB, if/when I get that back or someone else wants to help. Sometimes it becomes clear that the best resolution is to change the tag back to R from other capitalization. Anyway, glad to hear you're not anti-me or anti-lowercase. Back to it... Dicklyon (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed another raft of these today. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

By the way, if you see some where you think the R from miscapitalization tag is not quite right, feel free to change them. And if you let me know, I might work on trying to sort out which links really are wrongly capped and which are OK. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, note that I had gotten the report down from 26 kB (or a peak of 34 kB in July) to about 6 kB in September, in the leadup to my Sept. 15 JWB restriction. Since then, it's been pretty flat, as I work more on lots of little items. I did about 134,000 edits in 2023, mostly working on items on this report. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

wmb1058 and Dicklyon, Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations is either broken or the coding is incomplete. The past several months I've been uppercasing linked proper names of wars and revolutions, thousands of edits, and none were listed in this database. A few have some left (I visually scan and don't use a tool for finding the links or words on pages), such as French revolution which has about a dozen left to do, but some still have many hundreds. The next two incorrect casings I'm going to work on are Scientific revolution and Industrial revolution, neither of which is included in that database, and things such as the Age of enlightenment which only has a few dozen to uppercase. If you want to jump in please do so. Bottom line (literally), do either of you know how the database decides what to list or not to list? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helping, Randy Kryn. The trick is to edit the redirect change the {{R from other capitalisation}} to {{R from miscapitalisation}}. Maybe you can bring some balance to the area, if you and Dick can avoid fighting over what's Very Important and what's merely important. Wars and Revolutions in first-world countries tend to be Important, so they are capitalized, and we have many reliable sources backing that up. Whereas wars and revolutions in third–world hellholes, these unfortunately tend to be under-reported by the first-world press and are not considered to be as important. This can be a problem for Wikipedia, which endeavors for worldwide neutral coverage. I'd guess that the people living in those hellholes think their wars are Damn Important, the hell with what the first-world "mainstream press" thinks. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I've only been uppercasing what's already Wikipedia-uppercased in the wars, revolution, ages, etc. (been chipping away at what's left of Age of Enlightenment lowercasings since leaving the above message). Dick and I fight (Corn Pop was a bad dude)? Never, we politely disagree. If we fought we'd have more than one mutual ban. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

We fight politely, thank you, Randy. Most of the items marked R from miscapitalization are because someone decided, e.g. me after a move discussion, to mark them. I don't know why there are so many inappropriately lowercase redirects, but there are a ton, and mostly not marked. The trouble with their existence is that the visual editor provokes people to use them when linking, due to its stupid UI. So they show up in the report at a steady clip as that interface keeps tempting editors to pipe through them. There ought to be a way to automatically, via bot, fix all those that are just inappropriate lowercasings of proper names; that's a lot simpler than the other direction, deciding what needs to be capped more generally (e.g. the first letter of a descriptive-name link depending on whether it starts a sentence, heading, or list item vs. otherwise). Maybe we should put in a bot request; or you could easily learn to do them with JWB (with probably no chance of errors). We could maintain of whitelist of miscapitalized redirects to fix automatically, and/or define a class of things for a bot to figure out for itself. Let me know if you encounter complications that would make that harder. Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi wbm1058 :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: I appreciate the work you're doing on that. I may eventually get around to responding to your survey; my time is oversubscribed. wbm1058 (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, there's no rush. Feel free to participate whenever you want, I don't have a deadline or anything. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I think RMCD bot is frozen, want to give it a nudge or take a look and see if there's an issue? Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Wbm1058, I have requested my bot to run your script as a stand-in while you are away (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/The Sky Bot 2). Ping me when you are back so that I can turn my bot off and you can continue to run yours. Cheers! – robertsky (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Bot1058 likewise hasn't been updating Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests/Permalink since 16 July. (So WP:RM/TR edit summaries use incorrect permalinks in the "Requested" link.) cc: Robertsky. -- SilverLocust 💬 09:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@SilverLocust will bring that up later. thanks for the ping. – robertsky (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

bring that up => Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/The Sky Bot 3. – robertsky (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding to my to-do list. Template talk:New York (state)#Excessive usage on local articles. wbm1058 (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done 201 edits, that last one was a manual update of an outlier (using an invalid parameter). User:Wbm1058/template.php – I'll wait a while for this to sink in, hopefully without any blowback, before leveraging this to make similar edits for other states. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I notice that you have been "bypassing" redirects. Please do not do this. See WP:NOTBROKEN. Redirects are not broken and do not need to be "fixed". The linked page explains why. -- Srleffler (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Srleffler: I see that you reverted my edits on Optical fiber and Optical fiber connector. I've been working to clear out User:Wbm1058/Reports/Linked incomplete names and those two pages were on that report because Polarization-maintaining fiberPolarization-maintaining fiber was marked as an "incomplete name". I just made this edit which resolved the issue. {{R from incomplete name}} is a rather ambiguous template. See Template talk:R from incomplete name, and in particular, Template talk:R from incomplete name#Merge/Redirect proposal. I'm thinking about just making it a disambiguation, as there may be at least a few cases where an incomplete name is actually incorrect ({{R from incorrect name}}) rather than just a valid {{R from short name}}. Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Thanks so much for explaining, and for fixing the problem at the root.--Srleffler (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I have thought for a lot of years now, that any redirect that is the result of a page move should be categorized to the Redirects from moves category. Even if it's retargeted, it is still the result of a page move – at least according to its editing history. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Seems like something that you have to clean up after all the time has been fixed per this phab ticket? At least if I'm understanding it right. If so, I'm happy on your behalf. I'm assuming there's a reason I'm subscribed to have email notifications on its updates, afterall. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: I believe I got two holiday gifts from Wikipedia this year! My appeal in the possibly interesting discussion on your talk led to this pleasantly surprising response from Pppery (cleaning toilets is very much about cleaning up edge cases, keep the rim of that bowl clean, LOL). I still want to review his code changes, but trust I will be happy when I see them go live in January. My second gift was a scholarship to Wikimedia Hackathon 2026! OK, so the scholarship application asks for the project you plan to work on at the Hackathon, and I told them that project. No problem, I can just move on to the next item on my to-do list. Thank you for being a part of making it happen – wbm1058 (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

(hmm, another "possibly interesting" discussion from March 2024) wbm1058 (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

By the way, "ABQ" (below) is another issue that this Phab ticket should (hopefully) make go away. Sorry for the harsh tone of my edit summary; I was making a point. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad my push encouraging you to apply for the scholarship worked out. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Today I encountered the new move-page interface for the first time. I'm very happy wbm1058 (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed you're a bot operator, so I thought you might be interested in a hackathon we're organizing: the Wikimedia Hackathon Northwestern Europe 2026, on 13–14 March in Arnhem, Netherlands.

It's a two-day, technically oriented hackathon bringing together Wikimedians from the region. Whether you want to work on bot frameworks, tools, or other technical projects, this could be a great opportunity to collaborate with fellow developers. Registration closes mid-January or when full. Let me know if there are any questions. Hope to see you there! Daanvr (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Daanvr! I live in Ohio. I'm registered for Wikimedia Hackathon 2026 which will be my first Wikimedia meetup outside of North America (see the above section of my talk page for more about that). I've picked up support for the botclasses.php bot framework, which does have functions that need to be updated, but that I've never used myself. I suppose I could work on this, which I would prioritize if someone needed these functions. Sorry I won't be able to attend your March conference – wbm1058 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 22 § Category:Pages with editnotices on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow, you proposed renaming 50 categories, which is ten more than the 40 categories I've created over my 15 years as an editor. Searching through those forty and your haystack, I found that Category:Pages with editnotice central redirected is the only edit-notice category I've ever created (on 26 November 2023). – wbm1058 (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

These are my edits related to that, which should give some insight into why I created that category. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, my time is oversubscribed, and I need to be preparing for the Wikimedia Hackathon 2026 I'm scheduled to attend at the end of this month. Maybe if so many geography-stubs hadn't been created in the first place by using automation to dump marginally-notable external database content into Wikipedia, we wouldn't have this problem. But happy to see you have nearly a hundred editor signups. Amazing what a little bit of £cash can do. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Regarding this reaction (over-reaction, to me), I have to say that nothing about my cleanup there has anything to do with anyone "being a jerk". I don't know where this personal animosity has come from, nor why you seemed to want to personalize a style & titles guideline dispute. That's the least productive course of action in that internal subject area, especially when there's actually nothing at all substantive in the disagreement (both versions direct the reading editor to the same instructions).

Probably more importantly, your claim that "anyone looking for advice about the first sentence at MOS:First will find absolutely nothing about this" [i.e. about lead sentences in articles on companies], simply isn't correct. MOS:FIRST clearly states: "If the article is about a company or organization, the first sentence should start with its full legal name, regardless of page title (see also MOS:FIRSTCORP)", leading precisely to the material you are trying to overemphasize at WP:NCCORP. (And your version of the NCCORP text had nothing to do with MOS:FIRST anyway.)

NCCORP is a page about titles only and it has no connection to body-content at all (which is what MOS is for), as I explained very clearly in my earlier edit (which didn't revert you, just redid what you were trying but to do in a more appropriate way). When we need to direct people from one sphere of guidance to another that is nevertheless still related in some sense, i.e. is something an editor reading that page is at least marginally likely to need (and your instinct that this is the case here seems to be correct), then that's what the "See also" section exists for at a guideline page.

Your blanket-revert behavior at the above diff also clobbered unrelated grammatical, etc., edits, which is rather unconstructive and incautious.

I'm going to just chalk this up to some kind of miscommunication, and not dwell on it further, unless there's actually something that needs further input from us. :-)
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

More information May 27: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce ...

May 27: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, with an online-based participation option also available. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! Featuring this salon, a presentation on on whether Wikipedia can replace law school. And also, a facilitated group discussion on the proper place of AI in the wiki-verse. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Photography Policy. Meeting info: Wednesday, May 27 WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce (optional RSVP on-wiki). 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm (Open Hour) 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm (Wiki Salon) (Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan) Also online via Zoom

Close

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that you deleted and protected the page libtard a long time ago, but there exists a Wiktionary page on it. Could you please make the deleted article into a {{Wiktionary redirect}}? It's okay if you disagree with me. :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done – I wasn't keen on doing this, but after reviewing Category:Wikipedia protected soft redirects, and finding the similar title "Dotard" there, and looking at Talk:Dotard, I decided this was only the "fair & balanced" thing to do. I suppose anyone who doesn't like it can start a discussion at WP:RFD. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)