Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Note: Archives may be refactored. Requests for adminship Myself Amakuru

Disambiguation link notifications[edit]

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

My content creator's to-do list has items so old they've grown mold[edit]

...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)

Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD[edit]

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)

Adding permalinks to block log entries for 3RR[edit]

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

Deep gratitude[edit]

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

You're welcome. One final push to clear most of the rest, and then it will be time to take a break. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Break? Whassat?! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 05:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note that Category:Redirects to user namespace is significantly underpopulated. I was working off the list at User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects to further populate it, and worked my way through the A's. It's on my patrol list, so I may get to it eventually. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  I finally used AWB to populate Category:Redirects to user namespace; it now has over 900 members. My technique was to Make list from source Special page: All Redirects in namespace Wikipedia: – the category hasn't yet been fully populated for other namespaces. I think all of the cross-namespace redirect categories can and should eventually be populated by bots... AWB may be able to do that with a sufficiently sophisticated configuration. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  See HERE for the regex find & replace used for this. I manually monitored this and had to skip some that were already rcat templated; also may have missed some. wbm1058 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  Or the database query method used to generate User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects may be a more efficient method than my AWB special page walk-through. I need to figure out how to do that myself. @Paine Ellsworth: FYI. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Wbm1058! That's pretty cool stuff you're doing – and waay outside my full comprehension. Please keep up the great work!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  15:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

VisualEditor[edit]

Numbers[edit]

Hi Wbm1058,

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

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

Invitation[edit]

Setting magic words[edit]

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

Duplicate template parameters[edit]

• File:Haut-Brion 1931 chateau card.JPG
• File:Petrus 1931 chateau card.JPG
• File:Margaux 1931 chateau card.JPG
• File:Cantemerle 1931 chateau card.JPG

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

@Gadget850: Right, already taken care of. See Template talk:Non-free use rationale logo#Override fields. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Headings of Requested move[edit]

Why including headings as part of a template? There is already a subject/headline box. --George Ho (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

For editor convenience. See the discussion Here. This ensures that section headers are unique, i.e., so there will not be two sections on the same talk page both titled "Requested move". The {{Requested move}} documentation explains how customized section headers can still be used, see Template:Requested move § Custom header. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I've found (err, a beta version of my bot has found) three open RM's which are malformed, e.g., this one. The bot is not picking up the section links for these. It doesn't work when there are comments inserted between the section header and the RM template. Having the template write the section header, at least initially ensures that doesn't happen. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• I just noticed this comment, which was posted a few days later, which I overlooked before: "It's nice that there is a default header with such precision, but if the editor proposes the change using the "new section" button and has to leave the section header blank, it's unfortunate that we end up having a new requested move section with no edit summary; there's no quick way for editors with the page on their watchlists to figure out that a move was requested. Would there be a way to check for the bot to check for new move requests that have no edit summaries and add some sort of dummy edit to notify editors that a move discussion is what was added to the page?" I'm chewing on what the best way to do this is. The contested technical requests set up by {{RMassist}} automatically populate the edit summary, but that only works when clicking on a link. Sure would be nice if there was a way to populate edit summaries by just using a template. But a followup bot edit is a good idea too. – Wbm1058 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

See also: Related discussion HERE. – Wbm1058 (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

...and below. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Module documentation and test cases[edit]

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)

Template:RMassist[edit]

The list at WP:RMTR now does not seem to have any 'discuss' links. I only see the 'move' link there. Was this intentional? Perhaps the vanishing of 'discuss' was an unintended side effect of your recent change. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Ed. Right, that's not how I intended it to work. That's the "require opt-in", version, and I intended to put up the "require opt-out" version. I swear I tested this, and it was working OK in the sandbox. I'll see if I can get it working as I intended. Sorry, I should have been paying closer attention after implementation. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, OK, I think I fixed it now. I just observed that Anthony used the cut-paste method when the link wasn't there, rather than asking me about it. The idea is that you're not supposed to do that if the link isn't there. Do you think I should add a more explicit note to that effect in the what I expect will be, rare case when the user actually sets the "discuss" parameter to NO?

See my test here. The second line is the live version, and the third is the sandbox version. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The first of these three is what we will be seeing in the released version? I predict that that the 'discuss=no' option may hardly ever be used. It is hard to imagine an actual person wanting their move to be performed, willing to list it at RMTR, and unwilling to participate in a full discussion. I would be against adding more software support for such an implausible option. If you want to preserve this example as a test case somewhere, it would be useful to display somewhere the unexpanded source showing what parameters were passed to RMassist. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, This 'discuss=no' option, which I agree will hardly ever be used, is my response/accommodation based on the discussion at WT:Requested moves/Archive 27#Automated mishandling of a request and my followup in the next section WT:RM#Smoothing the transition from technical to contested requests. I'm not sure how I should proceed. I haven't gotten feedback from anyone else on that talk page. The lack of willingness to compromise has turned this into a big time sink for me, and I'm getting frustrated with that. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that this parameter was added by my last edit, and is documented at Template:RMassist. If I remove it then we still need to update the documentation and instructions on the new procedure. I'm not sure I can boldly do that given the objections raised on the talk page. Not sure if we need to start an RfC, or do it some other way. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

One approach is to interpret that discussion as No consensus for a change in RMassist. Then ask anyone not happy with the situation to open an RfC. So far as I can tell, only a single editor was unhappy with the status quo. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I just closed one technical move and it seemed to work. Hope you will be keeping this version of the template for a while :-). EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Emergency repair needed for Template:Rfd2, if you can do it...[edit]

Hey Wbm1058, I was doing some edits on Template:Rfd2 that I realized broke the template, but then realized that the fix might be something similar to what you did with Template:RMassist to forward the editor to the subpage in the event that they are on Wikipedia:Requested moves when they click on the link in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. When I performed this edit, I essentially broke the edit notices if the links are clicked on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion since {{FULLPAGENAME}} pulls the name of the page it was clicked, even if it is clicked from a transcluded page (which I didn't realize until now.) Is there a way that you might know to have {{FULLPAGENAME}} pull/return the name of the subpage (the page which the link is actually located) in the event the link is present on a page transclusion (such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion)? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Steel1943 (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943:

{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}FULLPAGENAME }} | Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests | <we're on the subpage, do this> | <we're NOT on the subpage, do this>

since in your application, I believe that the subpage name changes when it's relisted:

{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}FULLPAGENAME }} | Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | <we're on the main page, do this> | <we're on another page (likely a subpage), do this>

Hope that helps. I'm not that familiar with the internal workings of Rfd, so would need to study it more to give you a more specific suggestion. Maybe you can play with it in the template sandbox. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I vaguely understand what has to be done, but not sure if I am capable of implementing it without breaking something more. I guess the way to resolve this the best is if there is a magic word or parser function that runs a check if the page is a subpage or not. Then, that magic word or parser function (I get all of these terms mixed up sometimes) would replace the text "Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests" in your first example. Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: OK, I have a test version in the sandbox. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 9 has my "mechanical hardware" test. It is transcluding the "keep/retarget/delete" links as desired. The main page Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion shows "[ Closure: (@subpage) ]" instead. With requested moves, the subpage is always the same so RMassist just hardcodes the link to that. Here the link changes every day, so the trick is to figure out the name of the subpage that's transcluded on that section of the main page. I'm not clear on what the problem is that you're trying to solve. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wbm1058, if your sandbox does what I think it does, it solves the problem. The problem I am trying to solve is: After my edits, those "keep/retarget/delete" links produced an innacurrate link when clicked on their transclusion listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Since {{FULLPAGENAME}} returns the page name that the reader is viewing, if the reader is viewing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, if the link is clicked, then the edit notice generated will appear as "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#PAGENAME closed as ..." instead of "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/YYYY MMMM DD closed as ..." (which is how the edit notice will appear if the link is clicked on the subpage/page that is being transcluded), which break links in the generated edit notices. So, yeah, if what you did to the sandbox does what I think it does, you just fixed the problem, and much thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I thought that the re-listings were kept on the same page. I see how that could make the page grow too large, and indeed recall it bumping into the transclusion limit sometimes. So, it makes sense to move re-listings to the relist date, and then transcluding prevents the need for manually updating those edit-summary links. However, now it's a little harder to get to the subpages without those direct links to them. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy[edit]

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)

Proposed Mergers[edit]

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

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

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

Whisperback[edit]

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

• Wikipedia talk:XTools
• The xTools Archives
• wikitech:Help:Tool Labs
• How to log in to my account via SSH using PuTTY
• User:Σ tools on labs
  • Article revision statistics
• WikiHistory
  • https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikihistory/ (original German version)
  • https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/wikihistory/ (xTools English port)

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

Garry Newman[edit]

You're correct; Garry Newman redirected to Facepunch Studios. However, Garry newman (note the capitalisation) redirected to Garry's Mod, at least until I altered it to be consistent with the former a few minutes ago.

This was technically a mistake on my part, but IMHO understandable as names normally use upper case and it's confusing and error-prone to have two different capitalisations of the same name redirect to different places. Not really your fault or my fault, rather that it would have been better if there had only been one redirect in the first place!

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ubcule, right, that was flagged by Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review, which I patrol. I try to catch those, but when you process so many, it's easy to miss one. Perhaps the module that populates this category can be enhanced to check for that; I also sometimes look at Inconsistent similar redirects, which presumably would flag this situation too. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem- like I said, not your fault, perhaps slightly mine, and was just explaining why I made a minor mistake. :-) Thanks for keeping an eye on this type of thing. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

New interface for Special:MovePage[edit]

We seem to have lost the permalinks when moves are performed at WP:RMTR. When you hit the 'move' button a new-looking interface is presented, though the questions are familiar. Perhaps MediaWiki has just been updated? If so there ought to be an announcement somewhere. There is no recent change in RMAssist. And the MovePage command is populating the old and new title fields correctly, just not the reason field. That's where the permalink would normally be entered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It's in the "latest tech news":

• The page move tool has been switched over to the new standard look for forms. [1]

Jenks24 has already filed a report: "you lose whatever you've previously written in the "reason" field. This didn't use to happen."

Sigh. Can these guys change anything without breaking stuff? I see the two-notifications is back, and the "Your messages" notification still says I have one unread message, even though I've obviously already read your message. They should back off this breaking change until they address this problem. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If you can add to my report there, please do. I'm not as tech-savvy as you, so you might be able to better explain what broke (and perhaps why?). I largely agree with your other comments here as well, though I've tried to be less openly critical on places like VPT as of late because the whole developer system is so opaque – I never know if the person(s) I'm criticising is some poor volunteer doing their best with limited resources, a peon in the WMF's ever-expanding bureaucracy, or the head tech honcho. It's so hard to know who comments or complaints should be addressed to and where.

On a related note, I've tried to get somewhat involved with phabricator lately and have no idea what I'm doing. Check out this simple request (or I thought it was simple) that I made over a month ago. I have no idea if there is some sort of system for someone to ever get around to it, and if there is a system I have no idea where my request is in the queue. I'm beginning to think I should have just made the hack here on en as I'd first thought and bugger the other projects. Jenks24 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to take a closer look at that later. I never did completely figure out bugzilla, and haven't used phabricator much yet either. Just looked at the new "move form". So, it seems to be just a cosmetic change? Where's the improved functionality? Why are they wasting time on something that's not broken? I don't really see the point. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Wbm1058 and Jenks24. I'm glad Jenks added a note to the Phabricator report. It's possible there is more that is broken. A person could take the expansion of the RMAssist template, click it, and show that a move request form opens up with the reason information missing. I almost had a working test case and could complete it if it is likely to be helpful. In terms of who to talk to, the author of this Gerrit about MovePage: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/185591/ is User:Matma Rex, who we had discussions with in early 2014. Someone could probably write to him directly, since he gives his email on his user page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, the guy who gave us permalinks to diffs, that is a very useful feature which I use all the time. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, Wbm1058, and Jenks24: Sorry folks, I indeed broke that with this patch, and I've only noticed the comments on the original task today. It's now being handled at phab:T113718, we'll try to get the fix deployed today (if possible; it's Friday and Friday deployments are generally frowned upon) or on Monday. Please watch that task for updates. (It also appeared on VPT, not sure if you've seen: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#File_renaming.) Matma Rex talk 12:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up on the related note[edit]

@Jenks24: Sorry, I forgot about this, so now just getting back to take a look. Turns out your phab:T109323 of August 17 was redundant to the earlier phab:T85650 (Special:MergeHistory success message should include redirect=no on the previous title, January 1, 2015). Here are the code changes which were committed Sep 29 2015 (5 days after you asked me about this), description of the solution is: "Removes mergehistory-success message and introduce mergehistory-done so that fullurl doesn't have to be added to each translation message." Does that fix it as you wanted? I need to get back to doing some hist-merges myself to check this out; I guess I'm just too used to 'following redirects then clicking again to see the source' for this to have bothered me much. Nice to see how they hardcode default messages which individual wikis can override by editing their local MediaWiki message. I hadn't really seen how that works before. So, yeah, my experience is that once you enter a bugphabzillerarata it just sits forever [like an {{indef}}] until someday someone decides it's something they want to work on, and then one day, out of the blue, you hear that someone fixed it and it went live! Yeah! But, per Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-11-04/Op-ed, it seems they are now getting more serious about "surfacing and prioritizing technical needs from the community". So maybe there's hope for better follow-up in the future. BTW, I entered a request HERE. Which would help address the issue discussed ABOVE. Hoping that nobody trouts me for canvassing ;) Matma Rex, I see that you are on the Editing team. Any chance you might be able to take a break from your Multimedia work and do some "(purely maintenance)" work on the basic MediaWiki default wikitext editor inside EditPage.php? It seems to be dealing with section editing and section edit summaries in this part of the code. I was told that this is crufty code that most people would be reluctant to mess with but here I see that it's still being modified fairly often. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Yes, I have seen the change (and used it since). It works just as I'd wanted so a big thanks to Glaisher who I think was the one who made the fix. (Incidentally, the little thumbs up at phab:T85650 is from me, I was hoping it worked similarly to the thanks notification feature here but have no idea if it does.) And I do think the WMF has made a serious effort try and increase engagement between "regular" editors and the developers, so perhaps I should stop whinging about them so much. Still, it would be nice if there was some sort of indication for when a bug you file is likely to be fixed, if any developers have looked at it and decided not to pursue it for whatever reason (not important, too hard, not something they're interested in), and whether the WMF-employed devs are ever planning on having a go at it – if it really is just waiting for a nice volunteer developer to see your bug and decide it's something they want fixed too, then I probably need to start making friends with some devs so I can annoy them about fixing the bugs I care about. And no worries about canvassing . I've already seen the community wishlist survey and have commented on one or two. I thought about adding a couple of proposals myself, but decided they were probably too niche. But while we're pinging devs, I'll plug them here in the hope that might precipitate some movement. phab:T12814 (note my clumsy attempts to poke someone into working on it there) would make my life a lot easier. The amount of times I have to open another tab to check whether a talk page redirect has more than one edit in its history and if so delete it so the move goes through cleanly (or forget and then have to move the talk page as a separate move) is a little ridiculous. The other one I'd love to see fixed is phab:T20104 (see User talk:Graham87/Archive 33#Unable to delete certain revision for background), but considering there has been no movement since 2010 and changing the whole schema for deleted edits sounds difficult even to a layman like me, I'm not holding my breath on it. Jenks24 (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"Contributed patches are very welcome and the best way to get this task closer to resolution." Yea, I've found that page before. Seems like a fairly steep learning curve, but one I'm probably capable of climbing if I dedicate my life to it. Continuing ed classes in PHP and regex, if available at my local university, would be helpful. So far, I'm just self-taught in those and muddling through by learning enough to support my bots. I wonder, if I climbed that hill, would the Foundation buy me a cup of coffee? It bugs me that, while they continue to rake in growing piles of cash off volunteer labor, they can't find resources to motivate developers to jump-start tasks like this. No shortage of cash to pay for round-the-world travel though. OK, /soapbox. I hear what you're saying about stopping whinging about them so much. Pinging @Ryan Kaldari (WMF): if he cares to comment. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I agree that the WMF has neglected the needs of the core community for a long time. Hopefully that is slowly changing due to leadership changes and the completion of large high-priority projects like Echo, Visual Editor, Scribunto, etc. The challenge is that there is a very long tail of technical needs and it's hard to figure out how to prioritize them. If you have a need that you don't think is popular enough for something like the Wishlist Survey, my advice is to write a really detailed Phabricator ticket and if you don't get any traction, try to find out which developers work in that area of the code and ping them on the ticket (using the blame feature in http://git.wikimedia.org/ is useful for figuring out which developers work on which code). And if you're able to write any code yourself, that definitely helps. I know the process can be slow and frustrating, but we're all trying to do our part. Cheers. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I this item is up to three endorsements in your survey now. I also merged in a task where someone reported the same issue back in July 2005 – so the "bug" has celebrated its tenth birthday! Wbm1058 (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

wikt:whinge. I understood the meaning from context, but that's not generally part of American English. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hah, and here I thought whinging was universal. Jenks24 (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• "So, yeah, my experience is that once you enter a bugphabzillerarata it just sits forever […] and then one day, out of the blue, you hear that someone fixed it and it went live!" Every month there is about 3500 tasks filed and 2500 closed [2]. It's harder to tell how many of the 2500 and the 3500 are the same tasks, but as of right now 945 of the tasks filed last month are already closed [3], so I guess you're looking at somewhere around ¹⁄₃ chance of your issue getting fixed within a month. Could be worse, could be better. (Some projects do better, for example I'm proud to report that we're closing more UploadWizard tasks than there are getting filed :) [4])
• "I see that you are on the Editing team. Any chance you might be able to take a break from your Multimedia work and do some "(purely maintenance)" work on the basic MediaWiki default wikitext editor inside EditPage.php?" Mmmmmaybe. EditPage.php really is scary and liable to cause headaches, which may be fatal. But phab:T22307 seems straightforward enough to avoid prolonged exposure ;) One reason why I would be reluctant it is that it's impossible to write a fully correct regex that decides whether some piece of wikitext creates a new section (for example, try to do it with these edits: [5]), and then we'll have people filing umpteen bugs that it doesn't work in specific cases (like it's happening now with Echo mentions). Maybe we can make the parser give us this information – but then, the Parser class is another headache-inducing one…
• @Jenks24: "Incidentally, the little thumbs up at phab:T85650 is from me, I was hoping it worked similarly to the thanks notification feature here but have no idea if it does." Indeed it does, and people get web notifications for it in Phabricator by default, although it's public who gave each token (your name appears when you hover your mouse over it). It's more like Facebook likes (the horror!).
• @Jenks24: "Still, it would be nice if there was some sort of indication for when a bug you file is likely to be fixed" Some teams track tasks they're going to work on soon in "Up next" or "In progress" or similar columns on their team dashboard, which is usually a good indication, same when somebody assigns the task to themselves or triages it as high priority. If none of this happens,
• @Jenks24: "phab:T12814 […] would make my life a lot easier." Hmm, looks easy enough. I'll look into it and see if there's a "catch" explaining why it was never fixed ;) "The other one I'd love to see fixed is phab:T20104" As you note, schema changes are a big deal when you're the size of Wikipedia, and the sole DBA has plenty of work as it is :(
• "Continuing ed classes in PHP and regex, if available at my local university, would be helpful. […] I wonder, if I climbed that hill, would the Foundation buy me a cup of coffee?" "Individual Engagement Grants" are available, although they're usually for bigger tasks. If you do get back to college, Google Summer of Code might be an option; or if you're "diverse" enough, Outreachy (alas, they both also require you to come up with a larger self-contained project). Matma Rex talk 20:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Also, I was not going to reply to this, but I'll take the bait. "No shortage of cash to pay for round-the-world travel though." I'm not sure if you mean the yearly "All Hands" event in San Francisco (which should really be called "All Employees", as contractors don't get to go :( ) or the European hackathon and Wikimania (most people only get to go to one, especially if either happens to be in a more exotic/expensive-to-travel-to location). I think the first is a great rare opportunity for remote employees (~50% of engineering people) to actually meet each other in the flesh and recognize as actual living humans (and think how much we save by not having to pay everyone the crazy SF rates :P), and the second is a nice perk which might be allowing the Foundation to keep SF people who could otherwise leave for one of the many tech companies around San Francisco with bigger budget than the Foundation. (You can find a lot of information about WMF salaries online, since it's required to disclose those for H-1B visa workers and some more through Form 990.) Matma Rex talk 20:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Matma Rex, Thanks for your detailed reply.

• Looking at the specific project, MediaWiki-Page-editing that my request is classified in, I see "All Time" 1,422 opened tasks and 66 closed tasks. Page-editing is perhaps the most end-user facing project of all that Wikimedia does, so perhaps this contributes to my distorted view of the overall accomplishment rate. Overall, I find the core editing experience to be high quality, so I have trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that there are over 1400 bugs. There aren't really that many things I know of that need fixing, unless Visual Editor is included in this bucket. So, on the relatively rare occasions I do identify a bug or sorely needed feature, I guess I have high expectations that it should be addressed, as from my view, there really aren't that many problems with core editing.
• The errors with template or nowiki syntax inside section headers are there now, and this task shouldn't change that. I'd just ignore the issue, as editors don't do that often that I've seen. Maybe there's another phabricator for that one. The solution, I think is to either treat template and nowiki markup as plain text when it's inside section headers, or throw an error and refuse to save the edit. But that's something for another phab.
• I see that many (most) universities don't teach PHP even though it's so widely used on the web. So, though I have a masters degree, I'm looking at the local community college. I think the tuition's a lot less there too. I see that I'd probably start with a 3-hour HTML course that also taught CSS. There's been times here that knowing CSS would have been helpful, and my last formal training in HTML was in the stone-age of the Internet. The HTML/CSS class is the prerequisite for both a "web database development" class that teaches MySQL and PHP, and a JavaScript course. Classes start in January. I'm thinking about it. Regarding something like Outreachy, I might only qualify under "age diversity". I learned how to program a Programma 101 in seventh grade, and in high school, an IBM 1620. I learned BASIC the same way Bill Gates did, on a Teletype connected by an acoustic coupler to a GE time-sharing system. Re: that scary class, yes the concept of classes is still new to me, I don't have much experience with object-oriented programming.
• Sorry for throwing out the bait. To clarify, I don't have a problem with spending on travel, as long as it's not at the expense of support for the core of the projects. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Matma Rex, thank you so much for your reply here, it's brilliant and the stats are quite interesting. I see that you've claimed phab:T12814 and are looking into it – again I'm very grateful. I feel a bit guilty, though, that it's only really happened by pinging you here. I would not feel comfortable just pinging devs for every little bug that I care about, but conversely I'm not sure if there are any "official" channels where I can ask for certain bugs to be looked at if it seems they have been waiting significantly longer than a month? Or is this how things are intended to operate at the moment, we should be reaching out to certain devs if we can think the bug in question is an area they are interested/experienced in? If there is someone else in the WMF who I should direct these questions to, I would be happy to move my questions to their talk page so that you and Wbm can keep discussing computing jargon that flies over my head . Thanks again, Jenks24 (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, 1,422 open and 66 closed for MediaWiki-Page-editing is definitely not right. I think the burnup report doesn't consider bugs closed before the Bugzilla→Phabricator migration. If you search for the list of all open/closed tasks, you get 310 open and 1103 closed. I filed phab:T119376 about this issue.
• I don't think Google Summer of Code has a maximum age limit. It seems that in 2014, there was a participant who was 57 years old [6] :)
• @Jenks24: Indeed, there isn't any "official" way to do this :/ WMF engineering operates on quarterly goals and reviews (and why these two pages are on different wikis is beyond me). If you want to affect these, then you could probably send emails to some relevant mailing lists before the beginning of a quarter. Many staff recognize this as not exactly optimal, and there's a lot of work being done "under the table" that doesn't quite match the goals; asking people directly is fine. I don't really know how this system came to be, or who to question about it, but presumably someone higher up than me ;) The mw:Community Tech team and their community wishlist survey is an interesting change and I'm myself curious how it turns out. Matma Rex talk 12:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of DOS operating systems[edit]

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)

New section test[edit]

What will the edit summary be? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

See m:2015 Community Wishlist Survey § Generate automatic summary /* blah */ when I manually add a section heading when editing

Your support for this enhancement / bug fix would be appreciated. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Matma Rex: I was so excited to see you post a fix for this, but now I'm disappointed to see no further movement on the code-review for two weeks. Is there a test wiki where this is installed where I can beat on it as an end-user checking various use cases to see if I can spot any issues? Anything I can do to help move this along the deployment pipeline? Thanks again for all your help. wbm1058 (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it's just a personal project for me. I need to work on it some more (see the TODO items at https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/281470/1) and I just didn't feel like it (I've already done all the interesting work and only the boring parts remained :( ). It's not available on any testing wiki.

If you want to try it out, you could try setting up a MediaWiki instance on your computer with a Vagrant virtual machine (mw:MediaWiki-Vagrant#Quick_start), this shouldn't require a lot of technical knowledge (beyond knowing the basics of command line interfaces). System requirements: 64-bit OS (Windows/Linux/Mac, all fine), processor with support for VT-x (almost anything that isn't ten years old should work) a couple gigabytes of disk space for the virtual machine, and a bunch of RAM (I'd say 4 GB or more should be okay, looks like the VM requires at least 1.5 GB). Ping me at #wikimedia-dev ^connect if you're interested and need help :D Matma Rex talk 19:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

New section to test German tool[edit]

This is just some random comment. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I was testing de:User:Perhelion/sectionSummary.js (see w:de:Benutzer:Perhelion/sectionSummary), and while I think it's a good idea, I found its implementation still has kinks to be worked out. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Dab page[edit]

Thanks for your work on the gastrointestinal tract dab page. I am trying to build consensus on Talk:gastrointestinal tract to restore the dab page. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: Take a look at Talk:Human gastrointestinal tract § Proposed merge with Gastrointestinal tract. Sigh. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Conflict in the "Karaite" topic areas[edit]

The various topics titled with "Karaite-like" names have been a source of complex conflict. I regret that I haven't been more helpful in resolving it, but this is far from my main interests and expertise. wbm1058 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

A Sock?[edit]

Just to let you know it seems someone says you are a [sockpuppet https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimean_Karaites&diff=prev&oldid=698879278]YuHuw (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. I only wear socks on my feet. Let's continue the discussion over at Talk:Karait. I'm an administrator who prefers to focus on the merits of the arguments being made, rather than on the reputations of the editors making them. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Khereid[edit]

Hi Wbm1058, I have come across something complicated. It appears that the Khereid article was originally about the Karaits under the Kerait spelling variation of that name until a blocked user User:Ancientsteppe renamed the article on 06:38, 16 June 2013. After that several other users now blocked (e.g. User:Sczc, User:Toghuchar etc.,) continued to chop it about until it got to its current shambolic state. Quite little on the Khereid page is about the Mongolic people who currently go by that name. Cleaning it all up looks a bit too complicated for a novice like me to handle. I don't really even know where to start! Do you have any suggestions on who to turn to? In the meantime is it possible to put some sort of protection from renaming or moving the current Karait page until all this can be cleaned up just in case "socks" of those users are still about? YuHuw (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a bash, any constructive criticism would be welcome.YuHuw (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that someone reverted your edits and accused you of being a sock. Sorry, I find this attitude to be unfortunate, but refereeing controversial topics is something I've only dabbled in.

I was looking at the history of the "Colour" redirect (see WP:ENGVAR). Note the edit warring that went on for several years, before finally the page was locked down in December 2006. And that's just with a common everyday word for westerners. Now we look at something that is not well known to most western English-language editors, and has not just two, but several alternative spellings due to differing transliterations. I see that the original author of this page, Briangotts, has basically given up on it, and summarizes his reasons at the top of his talk page. It seems that the team with the most, or the most persistent, warriors, often tends to get their way. And often their first tactic, not their last resort, is to immediately pull out the "sock card" on all new editors they encounter that want to change things. I don't know what the answers are, but they aren't easy. I don't recommend trying to get help on noticeboards (often disparagingly known as "drama boards"). I think it would be good to make a list of all of the conflicting topics and what your ideal title for each would be, and try to get some sort of meta-discussion going. I'm not sure I want to put a lot of time into this. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a system for me to verify myself and show my ID card to high-level administrators? YuHuw (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw, I'm one of the newest admins, only having been promoted in late August. There are certain positions which require editors to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization which runs this site. See Wikipedia:Access to nonpublic information. The position that you would most be interested in is the Wikipedia:CheckUser; they are the ones who determine whether you are a sockpuppet. The idea is that we don't want people running multiple accounts to stack the deck of "consensus" in their favor. I'm not all that familiar with how this system works. You want to be sure they don't find other registered accounts sharing the same IP and the same computer. I see you found where they were talking about you on a user talk page. I know nothing of this User:Kaz, who has not edited since they were blocked in October 2012. I suppose they think that every new guy who comes along that has a similar point of view must be Kaz back editing under a new account. I find all this kind of talk distasteful myself, I wish they would just argue different positions on the merits. Wbm1058 (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointers Wbm1058 I will look for a Wikipedia:CheckUser, I have nothing to hide from any admin. Just wish I wasn't such a noob here now. Much appreciated. YuHuw (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Really sorry to trouble you for advice again. I undid the user's deletion of the article you can see here [7] and asked him to discuss rather than revert to the redirect and instead of commenting he has accused me of "edit warring" [8]. I posted the same thing on his wall in response but can would like to know if I am allowed to remove his poster from my talk page? It makes me look like some sort of abusive user or something. Wish the User would just engage in the discussion page if he has issues rather than take such a belligerent approach. :( YuHuw (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@YuHuw: Familiarize yourself with the WP:BRD (Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle), and the Wikipedia:Consensus policy and Wikipedia:Be bold editing guideline which underlie it. As the newcomer on the scene, you made some "bold" edits, which is fine. They were reverted – which is also OK, but – accusations of being a "sockpuppet" of so-and-so long-ago blocked editor, as a rationale for such reversions... is not good in my book (per WP:Casting aspersions). The reverting editors should provide a substantial reason for their reversions. Be aware of the WP:3RR rule. You don't want to cross that "bright line". This is where, as I said you should initiate a meta-discussion on the talk page... actually, we already did that... sorry I will need to make a deeper dive into the content and the sources to really be any use when it comes to arguing the merits. Hope this helps. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution[edit]

Hello, I understand I am required to post this here because I mentioned you in a dispute resolution discussion Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Karait. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Very sorry, still new to all this, apparently I had to move it here and notify you again There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I didn't think it would be a good idea for me to copy and paste the report with your comment so I left out your comment but if you would like to copy and paste it in to the correct section that would be helpful. here is a link to your comment to save you too much hassle [9]. Sorry about that and thanking you in advance for your patience. YuHuw (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, despite being one of the newer administrators, I'm kind of a greenhorn on these pages myself, as I did not realize you were at the wrong venue. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a followup note that the followup incident report to the one mentioned above is now archived in incident archive 913. wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for updating SCOTUS infoboxes[edit]

I'm sure it took a fair bit of work to update the Court composition parameter for the SCOTUS infobox (not to mention the updates you did for the individual cases). I want to personally thank you for your efforts; your willingness to go the extra mile is one example of what makes this community a great place. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. AutoWikiBrowser made it go a lot quicker. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox SCOTUS case
• Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/doc
• Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/courts

These will need updated again when a new nominee is confirmed. wbm1058 (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:Backlog[edit]

When {{backlog}} is used on a page that is not a category, the wording still renders as "This category has a backlog...". Could you fix it? 103.6.159.72 (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I assume the page you are referring to is Draft:Richard Arthur Norton movelist. I removed the {{backlog}} template from that, as it is not intended to be used on lists that are not categories. I also posted a message about that list at the related discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) topic ban in order to attempt to get a consensus on how to handle this unique situation. If you have additional concerns that I haven't addressed here, please do let me know. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, now I see that IPs similar to you (perhaps it is you?) have created other lists in project space, such as Wikipedia:Requested moves/Misplaced XfDs. I'll look into your request, in terms of how we handle lists that are backlogged work queues. wbm1058 (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I see, it used to say "page", but with this 15:34, 29 May 2014 edit, it was changed to default to "category". – wbm1058 (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:RMB is getting long[edit]

You may want to help reduce the current RM backlog, since it is now longer than the current discussions themselves. sst✈ 05:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

typo?[edit]

"if it considers itself not of moment to most people in "wikiworld"" ?? Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I was just parroting Alanscottwalker's earlier response to me, so I dunno. Their point wasn't totally clear to me, I admit. wbm1058 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Good work![edit]

It's satisfying to see you rolling back BilCat's idiocy here. Thank you for your work. - 2001:558:1400:10:7C77:F183:8F67:F369 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm looking forward to reading what the National Archives says. Indeed, it's looking like it could be very interesting. wbm1058 (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Toil[edit]

Thanks very much for closing that with a common sense well explained close. Just a question / Suggestion for In ictu oculi. In the future, when you create other broad concept articles about everyday-word concepts, start them at a disambiguated title, / I actually thought it was at Toil (concept), not at Toil, but will check the page history. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, yes, that's right, you did start it at Toil (concept) and that's where it still sits, deleted. Sorry if I implied otherwise. wbm1058 (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, would you mind please just inserting "(as you did)" just so it's clear to anyone else who strolls by :). I suspect that now the album is off top of pops spot there'd be no objection to actually having an article on toil as a concept, but best to leave it for a few months. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. wbm1058 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Moves[edit]

Hi, I saw that you recently closed some move discussions. Could you close this one as well as it's 3 weeks old and there's unanimous support? Thanks, Feedback 22:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on it, that's a tricky one to implement. wbm1058 (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. wbm1058 (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you, not only for implementing the move, but for adjusting all the links before hand. That's a lot of effort, and it deserves recognition. oknazevad (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Unicode[edit]

The unicode template no longer does anything. Since it features on your user page I thought you might like to know. Bazj (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Mary Lambert (director) Move[edit]

I am confused as to your recent decision at Talk:Mary Lambert (director), as it seems there was consensus for a move of the singer to the base title as per WP:TWODABS. While vote counts are generally not definitive, following the proposal by Cuchullain via WP:TWODABS, there was only one oppose. This seems to support a move of the singer to the base title. I was not involved in the discussion, but was going to close it myself once one more comment came in, so I had it on my watch list. Just asking you to take a second look at this is all.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yea, I've been giving this a second look as I manually disambiguate over a hundred links that are predominantly to the director who is a notable director of horror movies and music videos. The director is heavily embedded into the encyclopedia. In terms of long-term significance, this isn't even close. Per WP:TWODABS, there is no primary topic. It generally takes an unusual scenario to just jump straight from one primary topic to another overnight, without some time spent in the middle first. The !vote was something like 3-4, so that's not a clear consensus. Would be 4-4 if I voted. The director is still active, so links are still being created for both. Maybe after the director retires, it might be worth reconsideration. wbm1058 (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool, just wanted to hear a bit more of your reasoning, thanks for explaining.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wheel War!!![edit]

Seriously though, thanks, I wasn't paying attention. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

And now I've moved the talk page too. It's a mistake I've made before myself. Easy to do when you're first learning the page-move interface. wbm1058 (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but what's my excuse? It may not look like it, but I've been moving pages for a while... -Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot1058 3[edit]

Your bot task request has been approved for trial. Please see the request page for details and limitations. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT[edit]

Hello Wbm1058, your bot task request (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot1058 3) has been approved. A start up throttle has been requested, please see the request page for details. You may of course use a slower roll out if you would like. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
3. DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
5. Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed